1993 PLP 821 (PLC(CS))

M.A. Hassan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 3rd December, 1987. This is an appeal filed by the appellants against an impugned order, dated 20‑4‑1987, passed by the Sindh Labour Court No. V at Karachi, who had allowed an application of the respondent establishment, under section 34 of I.R.O., 1969, directing the appellants not to resort to illegal strike and perform their duties in accordance with law.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent establishment was engaged in garments stitching business and that there was no registered union or the C.BA. in the establishment. That on 15‑2‑1986, the respondent establishment had claimed to have entered into an agreement with Messrs S.D.D. International (Pvt.) Ltd., to accomplish the job of stitching the garments. It was further claimed that for this purpose, they had leased out their factory situated at 117‑12, East Street, Defence Housing Society Phase No. 1, Karachi alongwith machinery, raw material etc., and to fulfil the contract, they had recruited the appellants and that as none of the appellants did care to supply their complete addresses etc. despite the facts that they had been repeatedly asked for. The respondent establishment claimed that consequently they were constrained to suspend the appellants and to conduct enquiry against them and that on 29‑6‑1986, when this suspension was vacated and the appellants were directed to report for duty, they did not report for duty, hence, the present application under section 34, I.R.O., 1969.

3. The appellants resisted this application mainly by raising a preliminary legal objection that the application under section 34, I.R.O., 1969 was not maintainable and that no relationship of employer and employee existed between them. On merits, it was claimed by the appellants that they had no knowledge about any lease agreement between the respondent‑establishment, namely, M/s. Shama Trading Company and Messrs D.D. International (Pvt.) Ltd., therefore, the respondent‑establishment, was not their employer. It was further claimed by the appellants that neither any alleged notices were served upon them, nor they had resorted to any illegal strike, while the facts were that the respondent‑establishment had resorted to an illegal lock‑out, thus, they claimed that the present application was not maintainable

4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits‑in‑evidence and were duly cross‑examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order, hence, the present appeal.

5. Memo was present on behalf of the appellants. However, I have heard Mr. M.A. Hassan, the learned counsel for the respondent‑establishment and have also carefully gone through the record and proceeding of the case. At the very outset, I would observe here that there is nothing illegal or wrong with the impugned order which is quiet in accordance with law, facts brought on record and also in view of the circumstances. I would, thereafter, hold the impugned order as well‑reasoned and thus would maintain the same. Mr. M.A Hassan, the learned counsel for the respondents, however, was unable to add anything new in his arguments which he had also submitted before the learned Labour Court. From the evidence and documentary proof, brought on record by the respondents, before the learned Labour Court and considering all other legal aspects of the case, I would hold that the appellants have no case.

6. For the reason discussed by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed. A.E./1151/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.