1986 PLP 28 (PLC)

M.L. Shahani for Appellant. Wasiullah Qureshi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 7th August, 1985. The instant appeal arises out of the order, dated 10‑11‑1982 of the Sind Labour Court No. VI at Hyderabad Following is the Order:‑‑ "As result of above discussion I accept this application and direct the respondent to take the applicant on duty immediately and to pay back benefits to him."

2. The facts of the case briefly narrated are that the respondent served with the appellants since 1978, as a Time‑keeper. He was transferred to Fauji Sugar Mills on 27‑6‑1980. The respondent resumed on 27‑6‑1980. The respondent remained on leave from 7‑8‑1980 to 16‑8‑1980. Where after he was not taken up in the service and his services, without a written order were terminated. He filed grievance petition, which was allowed by the Sind Labour Court at Hyderabad. The Management came in appeal before this Tribunal and the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Labour Court to determine whether the appellant No. 1 was the employer or the appellant No. 2 was the employer and whether the notice on the employer No 1 was necessary or the notice on appellant No. 2 was necessary. Further evidence was not led by any party and after answering the two queries; the Labour Court passed the order as quoted above. This appeal is against that order.

3. The Labour Court answered the two points raised by the Tribunal that the respondent was required to serve the grievance notice upon his employer vide subsection (2) of section 25‑A, I.R.0. 1969. 'Employer' as per section 2(8) of I.R.O. 1969, includes any person who employs workmen in the establishment under a contract of employment. 'Employer includes any person responsible for the management, supervision and control of the establishment, vide clause (b) of section 2(8) of I. R.O. 1969. Appellants' witness, Muhammad Anwar admitted in cross‑examination that the respondent was placed under him in the Fauji Sugar Mills, Tando Muhammad Khan on his transfer to Tando Muhammad Khan in the month of June, 1982. This shows that Muhammad Anwar, Site Engineer of the respondent at Tando Muhammad Khan became employer of the respondent after latter's transfer to Tando Muhammad Khan. Consequently service of grievance notice upon Muhammad Anwar who was agent of the appellants at Tando Muhammad Khan was deemed to be service of such notice upon the appellants.

4. The matter was argued by Mr. M.L. Shahani for the appellants and Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi for the respondent. The Labour Court maintained that Standing Orders were applicable in the instant case. It was not established by evidence that there were less than 20 persons working at Fauji Sugar Mills of the appellants.

5. While in arguments Mr. M.L. Shahani made a statement before this Tribunal that the projects of the appellants are closed, no business is available with the appellants and hence, the order passed by the Labour Court cannot be fulfilled or enforced. In view of the order, he B prayed that Rs.10,000 may be given to the respondent as compensation, I feel that this proposition in view of the closure of the project and in view of the non‑availability of the employment, is fair and equitable. This is an old matter hence I hereby order that out of the back benefits, already deposited by the appellants in Sind Labour Court No. VI at Hyderabad, an amount of Rs.10,000 may be given to the respondent as compensation and remainder from the back benefits be also paid to the respondent forthwith. This appeal is, therefore, disposed of in the terms of my above observations. Orders accordingly.