1977 PLP 345 (PLC)

Ss. 26 & 28 read with S. 2(viii) (xiii), (xxviii)-Oil Mil] owner entrusting work of loading, unloading and stitching of bags to Contractor-Entire operation of such work conducted by Contractor himself without any control or supervision by Mill owner-Workers employed by Contractor also paid by him and no privity of contract between them and Mill owner-Held, Contractor and not Mill owner was employer of such workers-Industrial dispute raised by such workers against Mill owner-Not maintainable. Hassan Inamullah for Appellant. Shaukat Ali Nanji for Respondents. These are 14 appeals under Section 37 of the Industrial Relations Ordi nance against the single order passed by Labour Court in 14 matters.

2. The employees working in connection with loading, unloading and stitching of bags intended for the respondents oil mills, formed a Union which was duly reg1stered and claimed to be `Collective Bargaining Agent'. An industrial dispute was raised. This was res1sted by the respondent. After the conciliation proceedings failed applications were made to the Labour Court for adjudication. One of the objections taken try the respondent was that the workmen forming the Union were never employed by them but they were in the employment of the contractors to whom the work of loading, unloading and stitching of bags was given. Evidence was recorded. On the basis of the evidence the Labour Court accepted the objections and dismissed the applications. Aggrieved by this the present appeals had been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants raised a preliminary objection that the order passed by the Labour court suffered from a serious infirmity inasmuch as the evidence led in the individual cases was not treated separately I find no force in this contention as the evidence of the witnesses who had been examined in the various cases was practically tie same and since a common point for determination arose in all the cases it was unnecessary to deal with the evidence of the witnesses separately. In fact the finding of the Labour Court that the workmen were engaged by the contractors to perform the task of loading, unloading and stitching of bags was not assailed.

4. It was further urged that although the workmen had been engaged by the contractors but since the job entrusted to them related to the respon dent business the respondents were deemed to be employers and, therefore, an industrial dispute could be raised. This contention is equally devoid of force. It has been established beyond doubt that the entire operation of the work was conducted by the contractors themselves without any control or supervision by the respondents. The workers were also paid by the contrac tors for the work done by them. There was no privity of contract between the respondents and the workers employed by the contractors. It, therefore, follows that the contractors and not the respondents were the employers of the workers. Consequently the workers could raise the industrial dispute only against the contractors and it was rightly held by the Labour Court that the industrial dispute which was raised against the respondents was not maintainable. It is also amusing to find that one of the contractors is the General Secretary of the Union. So the contractors in order to avoid their own liabilities and obligations involved the respondents.

5. In the result the appeals are dismissed.