1. DECISION ' These are four appeals against the orders of the Labour Court ordering re-instatement of the 4 respondents on the applications made by them under section 25-A of I. R.
2. 0., 1969.
3. ' The respondents were in the service of the appellant. Their services were terminated on the ground of retrenchment. Aggrieved by this, they approached the Labour Court after service of grievance notices. Applications were opposed by the appellant.
4. ' Evidence was tendered by both the parties. On the assessment of the evidence the Labour Court held that since more than 20 workmen were employed by the appellant the Standing Orders Ordinance was applicable and there was violation of the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance in as much as the services of the respondents were terminated without any Charge-Sheet or enquiry and termination letters were not served upon them. Aggrieved by this the present appeals had been filed.
5. ' The main ground to be considered in these appeals is whether Standing Orders Ordinance was applicable.
6. ' According to the respondents there were more than 20 persons working in the Mills but this was disputed by the appellant and it was pleaded that the number of workmen was less than 20. The Labour Court accepted the contention of the respondents. I must say that Learned Presiding Officer clearly erred in this as there was bare word of the respondent and no documentary proof was furnished. The burden of proof lay up on them and they miserably failed to discharge it. They did not care to summon the record maintained by the appellant. The Labour Court wrongly placed the responsibility of the production of documents upon the appellants. It was for the respondents to have made a request in the Labour Court to direct the appellants to produce the record in order to substantiate their contentions. It is a settled principle of law that the burden of proof lay upon that party which fails if no evidence is led.
7. ' In the circumstances I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the Standing Orders Ordinance was not applicable and, therefore, no exception can be taken to the termination of the services of the respondents.
8. ' In the result the appeals are allowed and the orders of Labour Courts are set aside. The applications made under section 25-A, I. R. O., stand dismissed.