1993 PLP 381 (PLC)

This appeal calls in question the order of the Labour Court dismissing the petitioner's grievance application under section 25‑A of the I.R.O., 1969. The circumstances, in which it has arisen, has got a chequered history and is succinctly stated in the following words.

2. The appellant had been working with the respondents, a firm of Clearing & Forwarding Agents, as a Clerk for some 24 years. His services had earlier been terminated in October, 1984 and his petition for reinstatement had been allowed ex parte. (In this very context it might be mentioned that the appeal was dismissed but the Constitutional petition filed by the firm had been allowed and the matter is awaiting decision in the Supreme Court).

3. To pick up the thread, the appeal was pending before the Tribunal when his services, once again, came to be terminated on 20‑11‑1986 on the ground that there was re‑organization of the Office, and the post he was holding had been abolished.

4. He had sent a grievance notice on 8‑1‑1987 which was replied to and there being no redressal of his grievance a petition was filed before the Labour Court. Inter alia mentioning that it was mala fide order amounting to Contempt of Court also.

5. The respondent in their Written Statement urged that the petition was not maintainable as the number of employees with them was below twenty; actually they put the number of workers with them at

8. It was also mentioned that the Company was undergoing some losses, for the past few years.

6. The appellant was his own witness and A.L. Farooki, the proprietor of the firm, sine deceased, appeared on behalf of the respondents.

7. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the number of employees working with the respondent firm was under twenty and therefore the Standing Orders Ordinance did not apply. It went on to observe that having sent the cheque for a month's salary in lieu of notice, the respondents had fulfilled their obligations under section 19 of the West Pakistan Shops and Establishment Ordinance, 1969.

8. The appellant during the proceedings before the Labour Court stated that the number of employees working with the respondent was more than twenty. Further he was having some firms to look after the work of loading and unloading at the Sea Port, Airport and Railway Station. He was confronted with the Attendance Register pertaining to the year 1983 where he had admitted to have put his signatures upto November, 1983. It was a little prior to the earlier termination. The appellant however added that there was another register also where he used to be putting his signature but the suggestion came to be denied.

9. The appellant had pursued his case with all diligence and there are some 1377 pages on the record. He has, however, not taken care to tell us as to who were the persons whose names are not put on the register produced in the Court. The respondent was put to a gruelling cross‑examination during three hearings and he died before he could resume his stand in the witness‑box. This fact provided further occasion to the appellant to put a heap of documents on the record of the Labour Court, vociferously urging that he could not be deprived of their use if the respondent died during the proceedings. Somehow they are on the record. In the cross‑examination, rambling questions had been put to the respondent, A.L. Farooki, including his connection with Salman Rushdi the author of the infamous Satanic Verses, his contact with the Martial Law Authorities, he being a retired Major, the Offices he was dealing with, including Custom, K.P.T. K.M.C. and Railways. He accused the respondent of giving gold ornaments to an officer's daughter on her marriage but declined to name the officer. He had all sort of vouchers and documents pertaining to the activities of the Company, but did not care to remember the names of his colleagues. In the circumstances of the case I do not find any occasion to doubt the testimony offered by A.L. Farooki.

10. In para. 6 of his affidavit‑in‑evidence, he had mentioned that apart from his regular employees the respondent also employed "Labourers for doing the work of clearing, forwarding, shipping, shifting, stacking, handling, driving, escorting, watching, surveying, packing loading and unloading of consignment (goods/cargo) etc., at Seaport, Air Port and Railway siding." However, he had admitted in his cross‑examination that the jobs, mentioned in para. 6 of his affidavit‑in‑evidence, were performed by the employees of companies who worked for other persons and companies as well. It is a matter of common knowledge, and also can be found from the record of cases (See Vera and others v. M/s. Kazi & Kazi Ltd. and others reported in PLD 1990 SC 435) that there are Casual Workers at the Dock at the beck and call of Tindals and Serangs, who worked for the Stevedores. Manifestly they were not on the pay rolls of the respondent as his employees.

11. According to A.L. Farooki, there was one addition to the number 8 of his employees and it has been explained that he had developed some eye ?trouble and could not drive without incurring risks. Any way the number remained still within 10 and under the circumstances the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance will not be applicable to the respondent. That being so it is not necessary even to mention that the respondent had sent a cheque towards the month's salary in lieu of notice to which the respondent added that he had not cared to open that envelope.

12. In the result there is no merit in this appeal. I will therefore dismiss it. H.B.T./2142/Lb. S ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.