Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: DHANJI VS Respondent: JAVEDAN CEMENT LIMITED, KARACHIHonorable Justice Agha Ali HyderS.P. Lodhi,Muhammad Humayun
1993 P L C 466
1993 P L C 466
[Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh]
Present: Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal
DHANJI
versus
M/s. JAVEDAN CEMENT LIMITED, KARACHI
Appeal No. KAR‑76 of 1992, decided on 11th January, 1993.
Industrial dispute‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑ Summary removal from service verbally‑‑‑Workman claimed that he had worked for over two years as a sweeper with the respondent but was denied all the benefits of a permanent workman; no letter of appointment was issued to him and on his insistence for fulfilment of his demands he was summarily removed from service verbally‑‑‑Workman, in his evidence before Labour Court had admitted that he was working also with other establishments and was getting some benefits in lieu of his services‑‑‑Workman admitted that he was not holding any identity card which was issued to all the other employees‑‑‑Workman could produce photostat copies of two cheques, one for the month of June, 1990 and the other for the September, 1990‑‑‑Workman could not explain as to why he could not produce photostat copies of any other cheque‑‑‑Amount entered in those two cheques also varied substantially‑‑ Workman could not prove that he was either a permanent workman or qualified to be one, entitled to benefits to which permanent workmen were entitled‑‑‑Workman was not entitled to any relief claimed by him.
S.P. Lodhi, Representative for Appellant.
Muhammad Humayun for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 11th January, 1993.
DECISION
M/s. Javedan Cement Limited, the respondent before me is one of the Units of the State Cement Corporation of Pakistan under the Ministry of Production.
2. The case as set up by the appellant before the Labour Court was that for over two years he had worked as a sweeper with the respondent but he was denied all the benefits of a permanent workman actually even the letter of appointment had not been issued to him and when he insisted on the fulfilment of his demand he was summarily removed from their service verbally.
3. These allegations came to be denied in the written reply filed on behalf of the respondent.
4. Farhan Sharif; the Assistant Manager‑of the Factory had appeared as a witness before the Labour Court. He has stated that all the employees of the company were issued letters of appointment and were granted annual increments in writing. The payments were made through pay slip. The company was issuing Identity Cards to all its employees who were also covered under the E.O.B.I. for which separate cards were duly issued. It was alleged by him that the Head Office of the Company was situated on one of the floors of Al‑Haroon Building which is also occupied by a number of other companies. The services of the appellant were availed of by the respondent very rarely for cleaning purposes for which a lump sum was paid to him. This is what he was doing for the other companies also.
5. The appellant in his cross‑examination before the Labour Court had admitted that he was working also with As‑Saeed Construction Company and Kashani X‑Ray which he chose to describe in the following words:
"I am getting Chai Pani as my salary from there."
To his own showing he was not holding any Identity Card or the E.O.B.I. Card as the other employees of the Company do have. He also admitted that the workmen of the company were being paid by pay slips which was not being done in his case. There was, however, assurance coming from him that "if I am given a permanent job, 1 undertake that I will not work anywhere else".
6. He has produced only photostat copy of two cheques one is dated the 2nd of June, 1990 which is in the sum of Rs.1,170 and the other is of the 2nd of September, 1990 which is for Rs.990. That approximates with the version of Farhan Sharif. There is no explanation as to why he could not produce the copies of any payment earlier or in between these two receipts and how to account for the variation in the figures of the two cheques produced.
7. There is no support forthcoming for the allegations made by the appellants from any quarter. There is, therefore, no reason not to accept the testimony of Farhan Sharif.
I will, therefore, uphold the order of the Labour Court and dismiss the appeal.
A.A./2147/LB.S Appeal dismissed.