Before the Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan.

In re:
Muhammad Sultan Vs. Manager Hilal Fabrics

Application U/s 25-A of I.R.O.

Written Arguments on behalf of respondents.

Sir,
Written arguments on behalf of respondents are submitted as
under: -

1. That the petitioner filed first petition on 20.10.94 against the

Manager of the Factory, replied to which by the Manager is
dated 2.8.2000 in which preliminary objection No. 1 was
raised that Hilal Fabrics is a private company Ltd. and is
registered under the Companies Ordinance by virtues of
which the instant application was to be filed against the
company. This fact has very well been accepted by the
petitioner in his statement as P.W.1 in cross-examination that
Hilal Fabrics is a private limited company. Upon this score
only the application is liable to be dismissed. Reliance is
placed on PLJ 1980 Karachi page 219 and 1982 PLC 664.

2. That besides this, the Manager in his written reply in para

No. 3 has also narrated the facts about removal from service
of the petitioner and which fact has very well been supported
and corroborated by R.W.1 and R.W. 2 that the petitioner was
removed from his services due to absence from duty. In this
respect, documents R.I to R.7/2 are worth consideration.
Moreover the petitioner has not proved his plea that the gate
of the factory was shut upon him and his solitary statement
without any corroboration can not be relied upon.
 -2-

3. That it is note-worthy that during the proceedings, the counsel

of the applicant, without any signature of the applicant, on
12.2.99 submitted another so-called amended application
against the M.D. in which the name of the Manager is deleted,
reply to which from the M.D. is dated 1.7.99 on the file.

4. That point for consideration is this, the movement the second

application is presented by the applicant on 12.2.99, his first
application dated 20.10.94 stands given up and is out of
picture. So far as this second application is concerned, it is
without signatures of the applicant, without any notice to the
M.D. and is also time barred against the M.D. which is liable
to be dismissed on this score.

5. So far as despatch of the charge sheet, notice of enquiry, show

cause notice and dismissal order are concerned they were
despatched through registered post and the postal receipts
thereof are Ex.R. 2/1, R. 3/2, R/6/2 and R/7/2. In this respect
reliance is placed upon 1992 CLC 1202 and 1984 P.L.C. 515.
That presumption under section 114 of Evidence Act/Article
129 of Qanoon-e-Shahadat 1984 existed that letter duly posted
on a certain address was delivered at their address within
usual time.

In the circumstances narrated above, it is prayed

that the petition of the petitioner may very kindly be
dismissed with costs.

Humble respondents,

Dated: 13.7.2001

Through: -
Syed Sibt-e-Nabi Abidi
Advocate High Court,

Syed Fayyaz Hussain Zaidi,

Advocate High Court,
128-District Courts, Multan.