1988 PLP 458 (PLC(CS))

Date of hearing: 26th July, 1987. These are two separate appeals filed by the appellants against a common impugned order, dated 8‑10‑1986, passed by the Sind Labour Court No.II, Karachi, who had allowed the grievance petition of the worker directing his re‑instatement in service with full back benefits by Ahmed Mian, the Contractor. Appeal No. KAR 313 of 1986 is filed by the worker, namely, Lai Badshah s/o Rani Zai against the impugned order directing his re‑instatement by the Contractor, namely, Ahmad Mian s/o Bapoo Mian, instead of Messrs Hussain Textile Mills. While, Appeal No. KAR 314 of 1986 is filed by the Contractor, namely, Ahmad Mian challenging the impugned order that under the law, he was not an 'employer' to reinstate the workers. As, the facts and circumstances of both appeals in the impugned order are same and similar, therefore; I would also dispose of both these appeals by this single decision.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the worker claimed to be a permanent Weaver of Messrs Hussain Textile Mills, Landhi, Karachi through the Contractor, namely, Ahmed Mian and as both of them did not comply with the requirements of Labour Laws relating to .the issue of appointment letter, identity card, attendance card, payment of bonus, and leaves etc, he used to ask them to observe the Labour Laws and to make payments of all his legal dues, therefore, the management became annoyed with him and on 2‑3‑1985, he was dismissed from service orally. The worker further claimed that being aggrieved he served grievance notice and therefore filed the grievance petition before the learned Labour Court.

3. Messrs Hussain Textile Mills resisted the petition on the ground that as certain type of weaving work was given to a Contractor and the worker was his employee, therefore, there was no relationship of 'master & servant' between them and that they had no concern, in any manner, with the alleged dismissal of his services. Therefore, either the grievance notice or the grievance petition against them was not maintainable, hence, liable to be dismissed.

4. While, on the other hand, the stand of the Contractor namely, Ahmad Mian in his reply statement before the learned Labour Court was that the worker was a temporary worker, having been employed on 1‑1‑1985 and that on 3‑3‑1985, he had left the job himself without any intimation and further that he did not collect his earned wages amounting to Rs.540. The Contractor further claimed that he did not violate any provisions of Labour Law and as the provisions of Standing Order 12(3) did not apply to him, therefore, the worker was not entitled to maintain his grievance petition against him which was liable to be dismissed.

5. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits‑in‑evidence and they were duly cross‑examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order, hence, these two appeals.

6. I have heard Mr. S.M. Kohistani, the learned Advocate for the worker and Mr. Itrat Puri, the learned Counsel on behalf of M/s Hussain Textile Mills and the Contractor, namely, Ahmad Mian, and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. It is an admitted position that Messrs Hussain Textile Mills was not an employer of the worker, but, he was admittedly an employee of the Contractor, namely Ahmad Mian, therefore, in view of this admitted position, the Appeal No.KAR‑313 of 1986 filed by the worker, namely, Lal Badshah is dismissed being not maintainable.

7. As regards Appeal No.314 of 1986 filed by the Contractor Ahmad Mian, it was argued that the provisions of Standing Order 12(3) do not apply to the Contractor. MT. S. M. Kohistani, the learned Counsel for the worker has failed to rebut the argument of Mr. Itrat Puri, the learned Advocate for the Contractor, Ahmad Mian. In view of this, I would hold as such and would set aside the impugned order as regards the order of re‑instatement of the worker by the Contractor, namely, Ahmad Mian.

8. For the reasons stated by me above I would set aside the impugned order. The result would be that the Appeal No.KAR‑313 of 1986 filed by the worker Lal Badshah stands dismissed. As regards Appeal No. KAR‑314 of 1986 filed by Contractor, Ahmad Mian, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The amount of back benefits deposited in this Tribunal by Ahmad Mian be returned to him forthwith. A.E./1084/Lb.S Order accordingly.