DECISION ' The appellant's case as stated in his Memo. Of Appeal is that he was employed by the respondent (M/s Motiwala Industries, Plot No,D/103, S.I.T.E., Karachi) as Jiggerman, though he was not given written appointment order nor Identity Card, Social Security Card, E.O.B.I Card, Leave Pass and other documents, relating to the employment despite his insistence for giving all such documents to him.
He has further stated that he was the only employee whose wages were not increased at the time when the wages of other workers were increased. According to the appellant when he requested the respondents for increase in his wages, they got annoyed and terminated his 2 years services without giving him any termination letter. As they did it in violation of the relevant law he sent a mandatory grievance notice to the respondent No,1 whose reply to the notice was unsatisfactory.
Thereafter, he filed grievance petition which was dismissed 'by the learned Third Sindh Labour Court vide its order, dated 28th September, 1999. Aggrieved by the said order he has come in the present appeal.
2. I have heard the arguments of the appellant's representative Mr. Shamsher Khan and of learned counsel Mr. Rafiullah appearing for the respondents. I have also carefully perused the relevant record.
3. The only point that emerged in course of the arguments for decision was whether there was relationship of employer and employees between the parties. On one hand the appellant's case as put forward by his representative was that he worked as a Jiggerman with the respondent No,1 for over 2 years whereas the learned counsel appearing for the said respondents totally denied the relationship of employer and employee between the parties. In view of conflicting stands between the parties on this issue the burden to prove the relationship heavily lay on the appellant. Even on close perusal of his Memo. Of Appeal it, become clear that he had no arguable case what to say about its proof. As stated earlier the Memo. Of Appeal shows that appellant had no written appointment order in his possession which is considered as the basic proof of the appointment. It is also admitted in the Memo. Of Appeal that other necessary documents-such as Identity Cards, Social Security Card, E.O.B.I., Card, Leave Pass etc. Which are ordinarily given to the employees were not given to the appellant. Even the termination order was not given to him in writing, as has been stated in the Memo. Of Appeal. In this connection, his only explanation is that despite his insistence for giving him such documents, he was not given the same. His further admission is rather more surprising that even though the wages of other workers were increased, he was the only worker who was denied the benefits of such increase of wages. It is not understood, how then he managed to work in these circumstances for a period of about 2 years. It also needs satisfactory clarification from him how and why he accepted the employment without written order, of appointment.
Furthermore, if he was not issued all the 'relevant documents as stated above how any why he continued his employment. All the above considerations put together indicate as if he was really not in the employment of the respondents.
4. The learned representative appearing for the appellant placed reliance on 4 envelope covers bearing the factory address of the appellants arguing that had he not been employed in the said factory, his such address would not have appeared on the said envelopes. He, therefore, pleaded that the evidence of envelopes should be accepted as a proof of his employment with the respondent. I regret my inability to accept this argument. If the said envelopes were in possession of the appellant he should have made a mention of them in grievance petition filed before the Labour Court. Not only he omitted to do so but also he did not refer to them in his affidavit-in- evidence. It was at the belated stages of his cross-examination that he mentioned about 4 envelopes and that too when a question was put to him about filing of documents, while replying to that question in the negative, he referred to the 4 envelopes showing his address of factory. The learned lower Court has rightly observed that these envelopes cannot be accepted as proof of his employment with the respondents.
5. The learned Representative of the appellant also placed reliance on small piece of cloth produced as Exh.A.W.5 showing that like other workers this cloth was also given to the appellant, showing thereby that he was also employee of the respondents. There is no such admission on the part of respondents that appellant too .Was given such cloth. On the contrary Mr. Abdul Aziz, the Manager of the respondents in his affidavit-in-evidence has categorically denied that piece of cloth produced by the appellant was ever given to him, adding further that he might have obtained the same from some one else. In this connection I am inclined to agree with the findings of the lower Court. Moreover, it cannot provide the proof of his employment in absence of any other evidence on that, issue.
6. Now I come to certain admissions made by the appellant in course of his cross-examination. It is admitted by him that the record produced by the company does not bear his name anywhere. This is confirmed by his further admission that Social Security contribution also does not bear his name.
When asked if he had filed any other case against the respondent beside the present one, his reply in the first instance was in the negative but soon he admitted that he has filed another case against the respondents under Payment of Wages Act. In course of his affidavit-in-evidence he has mentioned the names of as many as 58 persons showing that they are all employees of the respondents. Yet he was unable to produce even a single person from them evidence in support of his claim of employment with the respondents. His only explanation in this regard was that they being employees of the respondents would not support his case . This may not be true in some cases. All the employees of respondents could not be bundled out as having no courage to speak truth about his employment. \ After taking into consideration all the material available on record hold that the appellant has miserably failed to prove his relationship with the respondents as that of employee and employer.
As such no interference in the lower Court's decision is called for.
' As a result appeal is dismissed.