DECISION ' This appeal has been filed by Hashim Khan who claims that he was employed by the Respondents' Industries as helper on permanent basis, though no written order of appointment was given to him. He worked in the Respondent's Establishment for about 3 years but he was not given his due rights, benefits and privileges. On the contrary on his repeated demands for the said benefits the Respondent Management got annoyed with him and terminated his services, verbally without giving him written order. He served a grievance notice dated 11-5-1999 but the same went unreplied. He was ultimately constrained to file grievance petition on 24-7-1999 but the same was dismissed vide order dated 3-12-1999. Unsatisfied with the said order he has come in this appeal.
2. In their Reply Statement the Respondents Industries made a complete denial of the recitals made in the grievance petition, denying the relationship of employer and employee between them and the appellant. The appellant has filed his affidavit-in-evidence and on behalf of the Respondents Industries their Manager Bashir Ahmed has submitted his affidavit-inevidence. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel of both the parties and have also perused the record of the case.
3. The moot point to be decided in this case was the existence of relationship of employer and employee between the Respondent Company and the appellant workman. In view of total denial of the Respondent Company of such relationship the burden was heavily cast on the appellant to prove it. It is an admitted position that not a single document has been produced by the appellant in support of his case. The basic document was his appointment order but that has not been produced by him. His case is that it was not issued to him nor was he given any other document including Identity Card etc. It looks rather improabable that no doument was given to the appellant indicating that he was employed in the service of the respondents. If his character was suspected to the extent that he was employed in the service of the respondents. If his character was suspected to the extent that he was not supplied even reasonable document then why at all he should have been engaged by the Respondents Establishment. I am therefore convinced that he was never employed ' in the Respondents Industries. In his affidavit-in-evidence the appellant has stated that he had made complaint to Labour Directorate obviously but that too was in vain as the said Directorate obviously took no action to help the appellant. This also is a proof that he was never employed in the Respondents Industries. He also states in his affidavit-in-evidence that there was CBA in the respondents Industries but it seems he had not taken his complaint to the CBA nor the CBA seems to have taken up his cause on their own accord. He admits in course of his cross- examination that he was taken to the Respondents Industries for service by one person from Hazara but he did not know even his name. He has given his residential address in his affidavit-in- evidence as D-73.Labour Square,S.I.T.E; Karachi but this address is not given in his grievance petition which carries different address showing him as living in House No,1286, Gali No,53, Block-C, Shershah. Again in grievance notice he has given neither of above two addresses but has given address C/o his Representative Shamsher Khan living in Orangi Township Karachi. He has also admitted that he has not mentioned the nature of his work done by him during his employment and as such he does not know what his job was. Thus, there is absolutely no shred of evidence to indicate that he was employed in the Respondents Industries. There were so many persons working in the said Industries but not a single of them has been examined by the appellant to prove his employment with the 'Respondents Industries. Thus, he has miserably failed to discharge the burden of proving his employment with Respondents Industries. Consequently the question of issuance of the Order of Termination of his services did not arise.
' As a result of above discussion while supporting the findings of the learned Lower Court appeal is dismissed.