1. This is a revision application under section 38(3a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 against the order, dated 14-5-1998 passed by the learned Labour Court No. VI at Hyderabad, in Grievance Application No. 180 of 1995.
2. 2.The respondent was appointed by the applicant on different dates for different periods. Mr. Devdas and Wahid Bux for applicant and respondent have filed a statement, in writing, signed by them in respect thereof, which is reproduced .as under:-- (1)First appointment 31-12-1989 forindefinite Indefinite period.period.
3. (2)Second order 10-1-1990Indefinite period.
4. (3)Third appointment (Gap1060 days. months) 4-11-1990 to 2-1-1991.
5. (4)(Gap 3 days) Fourth appointment60 days, 6-1-1991 to 6-3-1991.
6. (5)(Gap 2 days) Fifth appointment60 days from 9-3-1991 to 7-5-1991.
7. (6)(2 days gap) Sixth appointment60 days, from 10-5-1991 to 7-7-195,1.
8. (7)(Gap 3 days) Seventh appointment60 days, from 11-7-1991 to 8-9-1991.
9. (8)Eighth appointment 11-9---1991 to60 days 9-11-1991 (Gap 2 days).
10. (9)Ninthappointmentfrom60 days 12-11-1991 to 10-1-1992.
11. (10)(Gap 2 days) Tenth appointment60 days.
12. 13-1-1992 to 12-3-1992.
13. (11)(Gap of 2 days) Eleventh60 days appointment from 13-5-1992 to 13-5-1992.
14. (12)(Gap 2 days) Twelth appointment60 days. from 16-5-1992 to 14-7-1992 Removed from 27-8-1995.
15. (Sd.)
16. Rep. of respondent (Sd.)
17. 21-4-1999. 21-4-1999 According to SRTC record, there is no appointment order, after 20-5-1992.
18. (Sd.)
19. 21-4-1999
3. It is evident from the above joint statement that the respondent worked as Driver during 31-12- 1989 to 15-7-1992 by virtue of as many as 12 appointment orders, issued by the Corporation to the respondent, but all with gaps ranging from 2/3 days to ten months.
4. It is alleged by the respondent's representative that he worked up to 26-8-1995 and was removed from 27-8-1995, but he has not been able to produce any appointment letter, attendance card, attendance register or pay sheet etc., to substantiate his allegation. In fact, there is no material on record either documentary or oral, except the word of the mouth of the respondent/worker himself to prove that he worked in the Corporation beyond 14-7-1992. In the absence of any evidence, I do not feel satisfied that respondent worked at all during the aforesaid period i.e. from 15-7-1992 to 27-8-1995. The submission of the respondent's representative that there is no evidence to discredit the averment of the respondent/worker, will not absolve the respondent to prove the allegations, trade by him. It is a settled principle of law that anyone who claims a certain right in his favour against the other, the burden of proving it is on him. According to the Islamic Principle also. To prove the claim is on the claimant (section 76 of Al-Majallah). See Qanun-e-Shahadat by Dr. Tanzil-ur-Rehman (PLD Publishers, Lahore). This will affect the legality of the' grievance notice as well as the maintainability of the grievance application being hit by the provisions of section 25-A of I.R.O., 1969, which, in the circumstance, cannot be said to be maintainable, filed beyond time limit, as prescribed by law, the cause of action, if any, having accrued on 15-7-1992.
5. Since it has been held, as above, that the respondent cannot be deemed to be a permanent workman, he was not entitled to a notice of termination, as provided under Standing Order 12(3) of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. Though he appears to have worked for more than 183 days during a year but nothing has been shown that it was a case of "Badli", as inserted by Amendment in 1973.
6. For the aforesaid discussion, the decision of the learned Labour Court, impugned in this revision, is held to be illegal and stands set aside. The revision application is allowed accordingly.
7. The Corporation may, however, consider favourably re-employment of the respondent/worker, as he is an old worker.
20. Announced is open Court, this the 30th day of April, 1999.