Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SHAH BALIJAN VS Respondent: 1ST SINDH LABOUR COURTHonorable Justice Agha Ali Hyder
1993 P L C 394
1993 P L C 394
[Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh]
Present: Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal
SHAH BALIJAN
versus
THE 1ST SINDH LABOUR COURT and another
Appeal No. KAR‑411 of 1991, decided on 24th December, 1992.
Industrial dispute‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Appeal‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Appellant claimed that he was employee of respondent and was gate stopped when one day he went to report on his duty‑‑‑Respondent denied claim of appellant and contended that his factory was closed and information to that effect had been given to all relevant Departments of Government‑‑‑Appellant had nothing with him like token pass, identity card or any other document to show that he was ever employed with respondent‑‑‑Respondent had produced two Registers in which name of appellant did not appear at all‑‑‑Appellant having failed to establish his claim by whatever evidence, no substance, was found in his appeal filed against judgment of Trial Court.
Appellant in person.
Date of hearing: 24th December, 1992.
DECISION
The circumstances in which this appeal has arisen, very briefly put, are as follows:‑
It is alleged that the petitioner was working as a Weaver in the respondent factory and on the 28th of July, 1990 he was gate stopped when he went to report on his duties. He had therefore sent a grievance notice and later preferred the petition before the Labour Court which came to be dismissed.
2. The appellant was his own witness, and one Mansoor a partner, who was also working as the Factory Manager was examined from the other side.
3. Nobody was appeared on behalf of the respondent, and it was the appellant who himself was present. His lawyer has remained absent all along. Actually it was the appellant who had stated that the Tribunal might decide the matter, after perusing the record.
4. I have seen the record. The version of the respondent was that the factory stood closed from 1st July to 30th September, 1990 and information to that effect had been given to all the relevant Departments of Government such as Labour Directorate, Old‑Age Benefit Institution, Education Cess etc. and he had not been challenged.
5. There is also nothing with the appellant by way of token pass or Identity Card or any other document to show that the appellant was ever employed with the respondent. There is also no evidence forthcoming from any other quarter. On the other hand the respondent has produced two registers in which his name does not appear at all. So there is just word against word from the appellant side and it was obviously for him to put some construction on his averment. Nothing on this score available at all. There is therefore no substance in the appeal and the same is dismissed.
H.B.T./2143/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.