1. DECISION ' These are two cross appeals against the order of the Labour Court allowing re-instatement of the workers without back benefits which were made dependent upon the result of the Criminal case pending against him.
2. ' Rahmat Ali was working as a Chowkidar in Messrs Tariq Oil Mills. He was a permanent employee.
3. Subsequently the mill was leased to Haji Suleman Usman.
4. ' The services of Rahmat Ali were terminated in writing as provided by Standing Order No, 12 for the reasons that the Management had lost confidence in him on account of some incident. Rehmat All was also prosecuted and a Criminal case is pending against him.
5. ' Rahmat Ali aggrieved by the termination of service sent a grievance notice and then approached the Labour Court under section 25.A, I. R.
0. For re-instatement with back benefits. The application was resisted on various grounds. Evidence was tendered by the parties.
6. ' On assessm ent of the evidence the Labour Court upheld the plea taken by Rahmat All and refuted the objections raised on behalf of the Management. On the basis of the conclusion the impugned order was passed. Aggrieved by this both the parties filed appeals. The Management filed the appeal against the re-instatement while Rahmat filed the appeal against the denial of the back benefits.
7. ' On perusal of the record and proceedings and hearing arguments, I have decided to confine myself to only one point which is sufficient for the disposal of these appeals. This plea relates to the application of the Standing Orders Ordinance depending upon the number of workers employed in the Factory.
8. ' The main ground which weighed with the learned Presiding Officer was that the service of Rahmat All was terminated without any charge-sheet and inquiry and therefore the action of the Management was vitiated. In order to attract the application of Standing Order No, 15 which requires charge-sheet and inquiry it is necessary that the number of the workers employed in the factory should be at least 49. In my view Rahmat All failed to prove that there were 49 or more workers employed in the factory. This contention was refuted by the Management and Rahmat All led no evidence to prove that there were 49 or more workers in the factory. The burden of proof lay upon him and he failed to discharge it. His bare word cannot be accepted. He did not care to examine any office-bearer of the Union or any other worker to support his contention. He even did not care to summon the record maintained by the Management.
9. ' In the result I allow the appeal filed by the Management and dismiss the appeal filed by Rahmat Ali and set aside the impugned order. Consequently the application made under section 25-A, I. R.
0. Stands dismissed.