DECISION ' These are two appeals against the common order passed in two cases by the Labour Court on the applications made by the appellants under section 25-A of I. R.
0., 1969.
2. The case of the appellants was that they were in the permanent employment of respondent mills Messrs Athar Textile Mills and Anwar Textile Mills on piece-rated basis. Their services were orally terminated on 28-11-1975 when they were stopped at the gate. It was also pleaded that the Union was formed and they were elected office-bearers and furthermore, they made application to the Registrar for the registration of the Union as well as informed the respondent of the bar imposed by section 8(a) of I. R.
0., 1969. After sending grievance notices by registered post AID and having received no reply they Sled applications under section 25-A of I. R. 0, 1969.
3. The applications were resisted. It was pleaded by Anwar Textile Mills that the appellants were never in their service and, therefore, they were wrongly impleaded. So far Athar Textile Mills is concerned it was admitted in written statement that the appellants were in their service since some time and they remained absent with effect from 28-11-1975. It was denied that they were removed from service or stopped at the gate. It was pleaded that the mill was registered under the Shops and Establishment Act. It was denied that any grievance notice was received.
4.
4. Evidence was tendered by both the parties. On the assessment of the evidence the learned Presiding Officer came to the conclusion that the appellants were not in the service of Anwar Textile Mint but they were serving in Athar Textile Mills and they remained absent with effect from 25-11-75 and 27-11-75. It was also found that it was not proved that any grievance notice was served. Lastly it was stated that the benefits of section 8(a) of I. R. O., 1969 could not be extended to appellants as the respondent was not aware that any Union was formed and the respondent had any knowledge of having made any application for registration of the same.
5. I have heard the appellants who were present in person as well as representative for the respondent and I am of the view that the impugned order is not sustainable.
6. The learned Presiding Officer clearly erred in coming to the conclusion that no grievance notice was served. Thy appellants have produced postal receipt as well as A/D receipt bearing postal seals with the copies of the grievance notice. This evidence was sufficient to prove what had been alleged by the appellants. Bare denial on the part of the respondent could not be accepted. The postal acknowledgement receipt bears signature of Mrs. Ashfaq and the respondent failed to show that Mrs. Ashfaq was not in their service.
7. Apart from what has been stated above, I have already held in a few other cases that in view of subsection (6) of section 25.A, I. R.
0., 1969 no grievance notice is necessary.
8. As regards the bar imposed by section 8(a) of I. R.
0.,.1969 the only question was that the respondent was not aware of the pendency of application of registration. Even in this case the learned Presiding Officer clearly erred by ignoring the letters which were sent by the appellants to the respondent by registered post A/D.
9. With regard to question as to whether the appellants were in the employment of Anwar Textile Mills or Athar Textile Mills, I am inclined to support the view taken by the learned Presiding Officer that the appellants were in the employment of Athar Textile Mills. It is an admitted position that the two mills are not only separate but are situated in different places. Consequently, Anwar Textile Mills wore wrongly impleaded.
10. Now I take up the two pleas raised before me on behalf of the respondent. It had been pleaded that the respondents were not permanent workers and Standing Orders Ordinance was not applicable. I am not prepared to consider both the pleas as the same were never raised in 0( written statement which was filed in the Labour Court. Both the pleas depend upon the investigation of facts and cannot be raised for the first time in appeal. In the application made under section 25-A, I. R. 0 , the appellants had definitely pleaded that they were in the permanent employment and this was not specifically denied, but a vague statement was made that the appeallants were in the service since some time.
11. In result I allow the appeals and set aside the order passed by the Labour Court. It is open to the Management to hold an enquiry for the continuous absence of the appellants and take such action as may be deemed fit in accordance with law. It is also made clear that the appellants can't be ordered to be re-instated till the conclusion of enquiry on account of their voluntary absence as admitted by them in the cross-examination and they shall not be entitled to any wages for the entire period of absence as well as upto the conclusion of the enquiry. Question of further benefits will depend upon the result of the enquiry and the action that may be taken.