1995 PLP 297 (PLC)

Nemo for the Workers. Date of hearing: 27th July, 1987. These are six cross‑appeals, one bearing No.kAR‑193/86 filed by the management of Messrs Young Tailors, while Appeals Nos. KAR‑2174to 221/86 filed by the workers, against a common impugned order, dated 26-7‑1986, passed by Sindh Labour Court No.III, Karachi who had allowed' the grievance petitions of the workers under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969, but without back benefits. The appeal of the management is against the impugned order of reinstatement of the worker, while the appeals of the workers are against the impugned order of reinstatement without back benefits. As, in both the appeals the facts and circumstances are same and similar and the impugned order is also common, therefore, I would also decide all these six appeals, by this single decision. .

2. Brief facts of the case are that all the workers claimed to be permanent employees of the management establishment having served them as Tailors since a long time. They claimed that as they were satisfactorily working and there were no complaints against them but, they were not being given certain benefits despite the repeated demands which had annoyed the management establishment resulting in termination of services verbally and even without assigning any reason whatsoever. Thus, after service of their grievance notices upon the management, they fled their grievance petitions before the learned Labour Court.

3. The management establishment resisted the petition on the ground that in fact the workers were employed in a shop at Kareem Centre, Abdullah Haroon Road, Karachi in which not more than 6 persons were working as piece‑rated workers further, the case of the management establishment was that as there were less than 10 workers employed, therefore, the provisions of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 were not applicable. So, the management establishment was simply a shop under the definition of Shops and Establishments Ordinance, 1969 thus the workers were not entitled to maintain their grievance petitions under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969 which were liable to be dismissed.

4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits‑in‑evidence and they were dull cross‑examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order, hence, these appeals.

5. I have heard Mr. Malik Sher, the learned representative for the management establishment, while, none was present on behalf of the workers, I have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the cases. At the very outset, it is fully established that all the workers in their cross‑examination have themselves admitted that there were not more than 10 workers working in the management establishment. Furthermore, from the certified copies of the statements before the learned Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, made by two workers, out of the present worker, namely, Muhammad Ibrahim and Abdul Jabbar, it is again crystal clear that these were not more than 10 workers employed in the present management establishment and these statements were brought on the record and proceedings of the present cases as Exh. A‑2 respectively. Thus, in view of this admitted legal and factual position the findings of the learned Labour Court that the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 were applicable are not sustainable, hence, set aside. However, the services of the workers of the management establishment are terminable on payment of one month's wages in lieu of proper notice.

6. For the reasons stated by me above I would dismiss both these cross appeals and would order accordingly. . A.E./1077/Lb.S Order accordingly.