These are six appeals under section. 37(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, challenging the decision dated 29-5-1999 passed by the learned Sindh Labour Court No.3 at Karachi, dismissing the grievance applications of the appellants.
2. The facts, giving rise to the above appeals briefly stated are that the appellants, alleged to be working in the establishment of the respondent since several years on different dates, as detailed below:--- Name:Date of appointment: (1)Iqbal Zada12-8-1990.
(2)Abdul Rahman,18-10-1995.
(3)Ziarat Gul.1-8-1993.
(4)Ghafoor-ur-Rehman23-4-1995.
(5)Akbar Zada.3-7-1991.
(6)Fazal Rehman.1-9-1991.
It was further alleged that the services of all the six appellants were terminated orally on 1-10-1998.
In September 1998, the appellants became members of the Union, in retaliation whereof their services were terminated. Thereupon, the appellants served grievance notice dated 12-12-1998 separately. In response whereof, they had received a letter from the respondent's Managing Director to see him in the factory on 14-1-1999 at 11 a.m. All the appellants accept appellant Fazal Rehman (in Appeal No. KAR-111 of 1999) went to the factory and met the Managing Director who is alleged to have taken back their attendance card from them and told them that the decision will be intimated to them later on. Having received no reply, the appellants filed grievance applications separately under section 25-A of I.R.O., 1969. Each appellant filed his affidavit-in-evidence. The respondents Managing Director also filed his affidavit-in-evidence.
3. On behalf of the appellant, however, only one appellant namely Fazal Rehman was cross examined which was read, by consent of the parties, as cross examination for other appellants. The appellants also produced General Secretary of the Union, who affirmed that the appellants had been working in the factory. Another witness, a co-worker namely Khaista Zaman, also supported the appellants.
4. It was pleaded by the respondent in the reply statement that, the appellant had never been in their employment. It appears that after the evidence of the appellants was over and the respondents' Managing Director was cross examined, he changed his stand and stated that one of the appellant namely Fazal Rehman was working in his factory, but had resigned about two and half years ago. No resignation was, however, produced. The learned Presiding Officer was, however, pleased to dismiss the applications, holding that the appellants had never been in the employment of the respondent.
5. Mr. Rafiullah, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the impugned decision is based on misreading and non-reading of the evidence on record. The evidence produced by the appellants, particularly that of the General Secretary of the Union and another co-worker, was ignored. The learned Presiding Officer also failed to read the evidence produced by the appellants, as Annexure A/2, submitted alongwith the grievance petition and also referred to in the affidavit-in-evidence, which is jointly signed by five appellants, who had met with the Managing Director of the respondent in response to the issuance of his letter dated 9-1-1999 after the receipt of the grievance notice from the appellants.
6. Having gone through the entire record of the case and hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I agree with him that the learned Presiding Officer passed a sketchy order without referring to the important piece of evidence as pointed out by him and referred to above.
7. In view of the consistent stand taken by the respondent, I set aside the impugned decision and remand the case to the learned Labour Court. At this stage, Mr. Rafiullah learned counsel for the appellants, intervened and requested that the case may be remanded to any labour Court, but not to Court No. 3, as he is not satisfied with his honesty. I asked him to make such request in writing.
Which he did (PP-29-33) the case is, therefore, remanded to the Labour Court No.5 with a direction to summon the respondents alongwith the wages register of the period of service, as alleged and more particularly for the years 1997 and 1998 and decide the case according to law. No fresh evidence will be led by the appellants of their own, unless learned Presiding Officer feels it necessary in the interest of justice. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.