DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order of the Labour Court ordering reinstatement of the respondent on an application made under section 25-A, I R. O.
2. The respondent was a Chowkidar in the permanent employment of the appellant since about four years and on 1st February, 1976 he was verbally removed from service. He served a grievance notice and approached the Labour Court.
3. The application was resisted and it was pleaded that Standing Orders Ordinance was not applicable as there were less than 20 workers in the employment of the appellant. It was further pleaded that the respondent originally was in the employment of National City Hotel owned by a person who was owner of the appellant hotel and subsequently in September, 1975 Mr. Refique purchased the appellant hotel and all the employees of the National City Hotel were paid off and the respondent was again appointed afresh on 1st September, 1975. It was also pleaded that the respondent being a Chowkidar was not a workman. It was further pleaded that the respondent had himself left the job and it was not that his service was terminated.
4. The Labour Court accepted the plea that Chowkidar was not a workman and, therefore, dismissed the application. An appeal was filed against that order and it was set aside on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court and the case was remanded for disposal on merits.
5. On remand the learned Presiding Officer proceeded to dispose of the case on merits. He held that the appellant had failed to establish that the appellant hotel was purchased by Mr. Rafique from the original owner or the respondent had been paid his dues or there was fresh appointment.
This view was based on the ground that no documentary proof was furnished to substantiate the pleas raised on behalf of the appellant. He also held that oven the change of ownership did not affect the nature of the employment. He also rejected the contention that the respondent had himself left the job. According to his finding, the service of the respondent was orally terminated.
6. With regard to the number of workers, he accepted evidence of the respondent that there were 26 workers, named by him, in the employment of the appellant. The learned Presiding 0 cer further observed that the appellant did not care to produce any record to establish that there were less than 20 persons working in the Hotel. He, therefore, held that the Standing Orders Ordinance was applicable. The objection that the grievance notice was not served was also rejected on the basis of the evidence of Inspector of Post Office. It was proved by his evidence that the grievance notice was actually served upon the appellant.
7. Lastly, the learned Presiding Officer pointed out that the written statement was not filed by any authorised person. He stated cogent reasons in support of this view.
8. On perusal of the record and proceedings and hearing the arguments I see no reason to interfere with the finding of the learned Presiding Officer. He fully dealt with every aspect of the case and gave cogent reasons for coming to the conclusion. The learned counsel for the appellant has failed to satisfy me that the evidence which was brought on record was not properly appreciated by the learned Presiding Officer. The view that was taken by the Labour Court is fully borne out by the record. The appellant kept back important documents in support of the pleas which were raised. It is, therefore legitimate to draw an adverse inference.
9. In result the appeal is dismissed.