1988 PLP 117 (PLC)

Ch. Rasheed Ahmed for Respondents. Date of hearing: 13th April, 1987. This is an appeal filed by the appellants, Messrs Mackinnoi Machenzie & Company of Pakistan Limited, Karachi, against an impugned order, dated 1‑10‑1985, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. V Karachi, who had allowed the grievance petitions of the, respondent; filed by them under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents were employee by the appellants establishment in the month of April, 1973 and the; continued to serve till 4‑7‑1983 when their services, allegedly, were terminated orally without giving them any notice or assigning and reason thereof, in writing. Thereupon the respondents had serve grievance notices but they received no reply and as the matter was taken up by the union and ultimately it was brought before, this conciliator of the area, therefore, after the end of the conciliation proceedings, a report was given by the said conciliation on 31‑8‑1983 This report was disputed by the appellants establishment, however in the meantime, the respondents were taken back on duty. As or 8‑11‑1983 the conciliation proceedings were finalized, therefore, again on 15‑2‑1984, without giving any notice in writing or assigning any reason thereof, the services of the respondents were terminated by the appellants establishment. Thereafter the respondents, after complying with the legal requirements had submitted their grievance petitions under section 25‑A I.R.O. 1969.

3. The appellants establishment resisted the petitions of the respondents before the learned Labour Court, mainly on the grounds, firstly, that there was no relationship of employers and employees between the parties, therefore, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the grievance petitions which were liable to be dismissed, secondly, as the grievance notices were not within the time. He prescribed time limitation, therefore, the grievance petitions be also dismissed as time‑barred.

4. Both the Oarties filed their respective affidavits in evidence and they were fully cross‑examined. Thereafter the learned Labour Court had allowed the grievance petitions of the respondents directing their reinstatement in service with full back benefits hence, the present appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. Sheikh Mir Muhammad, the learned Advocate for the appellant establishment and Ch. Rasheed Ahmed, the learned counsel on behalf of the respondents and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case. As regards to them, first point of the appellant establishment, there is no denial of the fact that the respondents were employed by the appellants in the establishment according to the appellants themselves through their contractors and to this effect, there is letter of the appellant establishment as Annexure 'A' showing the respondents were employed as watchman through their contractors and therefore, the appellants establishments are employers of the respondents. The contention of Sheikh Mir Muhammad, the learned Advocate for the appellant establishment that the respondents were not employees of them but they were employees of their contractor, namely Messrs Sea Board Services has no force, The provision of Law leaves no room to doubt that any employer who employs any worker through his contractor cannot say later‑on that he is not the employer of the employees in question. I, therefore, hold that all the above named respondents were the employees of the appellants establishment and therefore, they were fully entitled to maintain their grievance petitions against the employer under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969.

6. As regards the second objection that the grievance petitions were time‑barred. It is an admitted position on record that the services of the respondents were first terminated on 4‑7‑1983 and due to intervention of the Union, the matter was brought before the conciliator and in the meantime, the respondent were taken back on duty, but, soon after the finalization of the conciliation proceedings between the parties, the services of the respondents were again terminated on 15‑2‑1984 and against this termination, the respondents have also served upon the appellant establishment grievance notice and after having received the reply from the appellant establishment, the respondent have submitted their grievance petitions well within the mandatory and prescribed period of limitation, in this behalf. I, therefore, hold that the grievance petitions were also within time, hence, maintainable.

7. Though, it was never a case of the appellant establishment from the initial stage till the submission of the final arguments by the appellant establishment that the respondents were not workman within the ambit of the relevant law as they were employed as Watchman/ Chowkidar etc, but it was established that the respondents, not only used to supervise the work, but, they were also doing manual work of loading, unloading from the ships and whenever found time to work in the office and perform the duties of a peon to clean the office, supply the tea etc. Even, on this, issue, I am fully satisfied that the respondents were doing manual work in addition to supervision of the ships whereon they used to be posted. In support of their case, the respondents have submitted a number of documents, letters and passes which proves the case of the respondents. I,I therefore, hold that the respondents were workman entitled to maintain their grievance petitions before the learned Labour Court.

8. The last, but very important point is that all these respondents were removed from the employment through an admitted position that their services were terminated without any reason or justification, therefore, the termination orders the respondents were arbitrary, unjustified and in contravention of the provisions of Industrial Laws. I would, therefore, set aside these termination orders of the respondents. As a whole, I would hold that there is nothing wrong in the impugned order and I would agree with it.

9. For the reasons stated by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. The present appeal is dismissed accordingly. The respondents are directed to be reinstated in service with full back benefits forthwith. The amount of back benefits, already deposited in this Tribunal be paid to the respondents after their due verification. S.Q./1037/Lb.S Appeal dismissed