1996 PLP 621 (PLC(CS))

Date of hearing: 7th February, 1996 This appeal of the four appellants is directed against the order of Fifth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, whereby the joint grievance petition of the appellants was dismissed as being not legally maintainable.

2. The facts in brief are that the appellants worked in the Commercial Establishment M/s. Pakistan Terminal Operators situated at Lalazar, Karachi. The appellants were charge‑sheeted and dismissed from service. They fled their grievance petitions before the Labour Court which was dismissed as being not maintainable.

3. The grounds of dismissal of the petition were that the commercial establishment employed five workers only and not 20 workers as required under the Standing Orders Ordinance. Secondly that the grievance notice sent by 'the workers was premature as it was sent even before the order of termination or dismissal was passed against the appellants. That without the valid grievance notice the grievance petition under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. was not maintainable and lastly that the charge‑sheets had been served separately on each of the appellants and they were dismissed separately. That joint grievance petition under, section 25‑A of the I.R.O. was, therefore, bad as only separate petitions of the workers could be entertained. That for all these objections the grievance petition was not maintainable and it was, therefore, dismissed.

4. Mr. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi has argued on behalf of the appellants that the five workers were employed at the Head Office which was a commercial establishment. That those workers who had appeared were actually working at the Port Qasim Workshop known as Mega Equipment (Private) Limited employing 70 workers, therefore, it came under the Standing Orders, Ordinance and the I.R.O. The original petition of the workers, however, mentions the respondent as Pakistan Terminal Operators Beach Hotel Road, Lalazar, Karachi and not M/s. Mega Equipment (Private) Limited According to the contention of the respondent M/s Mega Equipment (Private) Limited is a separate‑concern as a Private Limited Company. That the names of the appellants were on the other hand on the Registers of Pakistan Terminal Operators and their Registers show five workers. It could not, therefore, be said that their case came under the Standing Orders Ordinance.

5. Admittedly the appellants had sent their grievance notice long before the date of their dismissal. They were dismissed on 10‑9‑1994 while their grievance notice was dated 25‑8‑1994. Under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. the notice had to,, be given within three months of the day on which cause of such grievance arose i.e. within three months from the date of dismissal which was admittedly not the case. Lastly under section 25‑A a worker may bring his grievance to the notice of the employer in writing either himself or, through his shop steward or Collective Bargaining Agent. In this case a joint petition was filed for which there was no provision under the law.

6. According to Mr. Muhammad Faruq Ghani there is enough documentary evidence consisting of Wage Register showing five workers who received their wages every month and who were employed at Pakistan Terminal Operators. The names of the appellants Azam Khan, Mewa Khan, Muhammad Hanif and Poshad Zaman appear in these Wage Register from January, 1992 onwards. There are Registers for 1992‑93 and 1994 containing their names. These registers contain the signatures of the appellants on the Stamp Receipts. They can, therefore, not. be heard to say that they were not working at the Head Office but they were working at Port Qasim Workshop. Mr. Faruq Ghani has also pointed out that the charge‑sheets against each worker were separately published even in the newspapers and there were separate enquiries held. The separate grievance of workers could not, therefore, be combined in one petition. That since grievance notices were premature and against provision under section 25‑A the petition was not maintainable before the Labour Court under the law.

7. This appeal is, therefore, without any substance and I can find no` grounds for interference with the decision of the Labour Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./45/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.