' Through this petition the petitioner have called in question an order of the 4th Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, dated 15-3-1999, deciding an application under section 51 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance in favour of the respondent. No,2 and directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs,110,153.23 to the respondent No,2 pursuant to an order of reinstatement with back benefits, dated 7-11-1988.
2. Briefly the factual position appears to be that the petitioner/employer terminated the services of the respondent No,2 workman on 5-12-1987. The respondent assailed the termination through an application before the Labour Court under section 25-A of the I.R.O., which was allowed on 7-11-1988 and the respondent No,2 was directed to be reinstated with all back benefits. An appeal preferred by the petitioner to the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal was also dismissed on 17-8-1989.
According to respondent, though the decision of the Appellate Tribunal had assumed finality, the petitioner did not reinstate him for four years on one pretext or the other and thereafter, he filed an Application No,1 of 1994 under section 51 of the I.R.O., for recovery of the amount payable as a consequence of the order of reinstatement by way of a public demand or arrears of land revenue.
3. The petitioner filed written statement alleging that the orders of the reinstatement had been duly complied with, the respondent No,2 was duly reinstated and thereafter, voluntarily resigned on 30- 4-1992 after receiving of his dues. Certain documents purporting to be his letter of resignation and acknowledgement of payment of dues were filed alongwith written statement. The respondent No,2 appears before the Court and reiterating the contents of his application deposed on oath that he had never resigned or received his dues and the documents produced by the petitioner purporting to contain his thumb-impression were forged. Only one Jawaid Iqbal Chaudhry, Personnel Manager, of the petitioner filed his affidavit-in-evidence and was only partly cross-examined but did not turn up on the subsequent date fixed for this cross-examination. It was stated on behalf of the petitioner that he had left employment of the petitioner-company. The learned Labour Court after considering the evidence decided the application in favour of respondent No .2 .
4. Mr. Safdar Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two-fold contentions. In the first instance he has urged that the respondent's claim was barred by limitation as according to the petitioner he had resigned on 30-4-1992 and according to the respondent No,2 himself the cause of action had accrued even much earlier i,e, when the order of reinstatement was upheld by the Labour Appellate Tribunal. The learned counsel, however, has not been able to refer to any provision of law or a judgment indicating that the provisions of Limitation Act are applicable to proceeding under section 51 of the I.R.O. Moreover, a bare perusal of the aforesaid section seems to show that it does not confer substantive right of recovery upon a worker but only seeks to ensure compliance of the terms of settlement, awards or judgment of Labour Courts for payment of money by stipulating that they may be recovered as arrears of land revenue or public demand and upon proper computation be paid to a workman. As such I find no force in this contention.
5. Secondly learned counsel has argued that the learned Labour Court should have referred the matter to a handwriting expert for determining the truth or otherwise of allegations of forgery. It may be observed that the dispute between the parties, as is evident from the impugned order, was purely factual. It is also on record that though some documents produced by the petitioner purporting to show payment of money were signed by numerous persons including witnesses, but not a single signatory appeared in the witness-box to rebut the respondent's allegations that they were forged. What is more important, however, is the fact as recorded by the Labour Court itself that even the witness produced by the petitioner did not allow himself to be cross-examined and even after his leaving employment of the petitioner no effort was made to apply for summons for his appearance or produce another witness to establish the petitioner's case. Mr. Ashraf Hussain has also drawn my attention to an order of the Labour Court, dated 30-10-1996 on an application made by the respondent No,2 requiring the petitioner to produce their ledger and cash book but the petitioner failed to do so. In the circumstances 'I find no misreading of evidence or illegality in the impugned order and this petition appears to be totally misconceived. Since the respondent No,2 was only a worker and was required to appear on pre-admission notice I would dismiss the petition in limine with costs in the sum of Rs 4,000.