DECISION ' This appeal has been. Filed against the order, dated 15th May, 2000 of Sindh Labour Court No,III Karachi whereby the grievance petition filed by .The appellant Muhammad Aslam was dismissed.
The facts of the case briefly stated are that the appellant was employed in the Respondents's Establishment as Sewing Machine Operator on permanent basis from 3-2-1999 to 4-6-1999. The appellant's case is that no appointment order was issued, nor any other record was maintained by the Respondent Management with regard to his service. In course of time he requested for payment of 18% special allowance and allowing other rights and 'privileges. First of all, the Management avoided to attend to his request but when he repeated his request several times the Management was annoyed and out of sheer annoyance his services were terminated with effect from 4-6-1999 verbally and without assigning any reason. According to the appellant more than 20 workmen were employed in the Respondent's Management and therefore, West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 was applicable. He ultimately served grievance notice on the Respondents on 24-8-1999 through Registered Post A/D but the same was not replied. He ultimately filed grievance petition on 26-10-1999.
2. In their written reply the respondent Management has made a complete denail of the appellant's claim that he was employed in the Respondents' service. Their version of the case is that workers in the service of the Company were invariably issued Identity Cards and their cases were brought on record of the Company. All due facilities and other rights and privileges admissible to them were granted by the Respondents Management. Since the appellant was never in the service of the Respondent's Management the question of issuance of termination order did not arise.
3. The Statement of the appellant was recorded in the Lower Court vide pages 25 to 27 of the said Court's file. Similarly the statement of Saeedullah, Manager of the respondents' Establishment was also recorded in the Lower Court vide pages 33 to 37 of the said Court's file. I heard the arguments of Mr. Muhammad Aslam, Representative of the appellant and Mr. Mansoor Hussain Qureshi, Advocate of the respondent's Company and also perused the relevant record available in the case file.
4. The important point to be decided in this case is whether the appellant was ever employed in service of the respondents Company. No doubt he himself has claimed that he worked in the said Company as Stitching Machine Operator for about 4/5 months. It is an admitted position that he was not given any appointment order. Excepting his verbal statement there is absolutely no other evidence to support his claim that he had actually worked in the service of respondents' Company.
He had not even produced copy of his application, photostat or otherwise that he made for appointment in the Company. Even the owner of the Factory was not known to him as has been admitted by him in course of cross-examination. He also admits that he had never signed any voucher in token of having received his salary though other workman used to sign such vouchers.
He has stated in his statement recorded in Lower Court that he was allowed to enter the factory by Chowkidar though he had no document of identification with him. This looks absurd on face of it.
5. On the other hand Mr. Saeedullah Manager of the respondent Factory has produced a number of documents including Salary Register, Attendance Register and Vouchers Receipt. Name of these documents shows that the appellant had ever been in the employment of the Respondents'
Factory. He further states that though he used to make appointment of workers but he had seen the appellant for the first time in the Court as he was never appointed in the Respondents' service.
He has denied categorically that because he demanded certain legal rights and benefits that services of the appellant were terminated. In course of arguments the Representative of the appellant relied upon a letter addressed to his Factory's address which the appellant had received in course of his alleged employment, arguing that the said letter proved the factum of appellant's employment in the Respondents.' Factory. Though the learned counsel for the respondent has declared the said letter as forged one, yet that alone cannot be accepted as satisfactory proof of the appellant's employment in the Respondents' Factory. Therefore, no undue importance can be attached to such letter.
6. The above survey of the evidence clearly indicates that appellant has miserably failed to prove that he was ever employed in the service of the Respondents'
Management, though the burden of furnishing such proof was heavily cast on him. I therefore, support the findings of the Lower Court.
' As a result of above discussion, the appeal is dismissed.