1987 PLP 500 (PLC(CS))

Ali Ahmad for Appellants. Date of hearing: 27th November, 1986. These are seven appeals, filed by each appellant against separate impugned orders, somewhat on similar and common facts and circumstances, all dated 15-12-1985, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. II, Karachi, who had dismissed the grievance petitions of the appellants under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969. As the facts are common in all these appeals therefore, I propose to dispose of these seven appeals by this single decision.

2. The brief facts of the cases are that the appellants were permanent employees of the respondent establishment and were performing their duties satisfactorily. However, as the respondent establishment was not providing all rights and other benefits to the workers as were available to them under different Laws, therefore, on 29-3-1985, they formed a union and for its registration, the General Secretary of the newly formed union had submitted an application to the Registrar on 2-4-1985 and a written intimation was also sent to the respondent establishment under registered post A/D. That on coming to know about the formation of this union, the respondent management called on the office-bearers of the said union and asked them to break the union within two days otherwise threatened them to face consequences thereof. That on refusal of the appellants to do so, the respondent establishment had terminated the services of all the appellants, hence, they had submitted grievance petitions before the learned Labour Court.

3. The respondent resisted the grievance petitions of the appellants and denied that the appellants were their permanent workmen as they were being appointed from time to time, as and when required. The respondents also denied the allegations that they were not providing rights to the workers under various Laws. They also submitted that the appellants had abandoned their services with the respondents and failed to attend to their duties with mala fide intentions and to harass the respondents. The respondents had further submitted that the appellants are still in services. They objected that the grievance petitions of the appellants were not maintainable on the ground that they did not adopt the procedure prescribed under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969 and that they had no right guaranteed or secured under any law, settlement or award.

4. Both the parties submitted their affidavits-in-evidence and were duly cross-examined before the learned Labour Court. The learned Labour Court had dismissed all these seven grievance petitions holding them not legally maintainable and that the appellant had failed to make out a case for the grant of relief, hence, these appeals.

5. I have heard Mr. Ali Ahmad, the learned Advocate for all these seven appellants and have perused the record and proceedings of the cases. As regards to the objections that there were no violation of any right guaranteed or secured under any law or settlement, the respondents establishment have denied the dismissal or termination of the appellants from their services and have claimed that the appellants had abandoned their services and stopped attending to their duties. The appellants in their grievance petitions under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969 had stated that their services were terminated, but, in their grievance notices, they stated that they were gate-stopped and were not allowed to enter in the Mills. On the other hand, the case of the respondent establishment is that the appellants had themselves abandoned their services. There is no evidence on record on behalf of the appellants to prove that they were removed from services except their own words. The respondent establishment in its affidavit-in-evidence had emphatically submitted that the appellants were neither dismissed, terminated nor removed from services and in cross-examination, had stated that they were prepared to allow all the appellants to resume their duties. In view of this statement on behalf of the respondent establishment, the question of approaching the appellants to the Labour Court under section 25-A, I. R. O., 1969 did not arise as no cause of grievance had arisen to them. On facts also, the appellants had no case. The appellants had stated contradictory versions with regard to their dismissal/ termination. In grievance notices, they had submitted that they were gate-stopped, whereas in their grievance petitions under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969, they had submitted that on their failure to disengage themselves from the trade union activities, their services were terminated by the respondent establishment. In their cross-examination before the learned Labour Court, they had admitted that they themselves did not report for duty to the respondents establishments. In view of this legal and factual position, the learned Labour Court had rightly dismissed all these grievance petitions of the appellants. I, therefore, see no reasons to interfere with the impugned orders.

6. For the above reasons, the impugned orders are maintained and' these seven appeals are dismissed in limine. M.Y.H./892/Lb. Appeals dismissed.