2016 PLP 147 (PLC)

CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, CHAIRMAN.

Brief facts of the case are that on 05.04.1994 the appellant was appointed as Office Boy through confirmed appointment letter. The appellant never committed any misconduct or illegal act during his job. He also observed terms and conditions of service of appointment letter. On 21.08.2007 at 08.00 P.M, when the appellant completed his duty, he was called by the respondent in his office and without any allegation or show cause notice terminated the service of appellant by the company representative without mentioning any cogent justification. The appellant sent legal notice and grievance notice dated 25.08.2007 and 10.09.2007, in which it was prayed that the appellant may be reinstated with all back benefits. It was further stated that cause of action firstly arose to the appellant on 21.08.2007, when he was terminated from the job and secondly when company representative did not communicate its decision in writing after 15 days of grievance notice.

2. The controversy between the parties was contested. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned Punjab Labour Court No.1, Lahore framed formal issues and after recording of evidence of the parties and fulfilment of codal formalities dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant.

3. Hence this appeal on the grounds mentioned therein.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant, inter alia, contended that the number of employees in the Respondent Establishment are more than 20 and the provisions of Standing Order is applicable in the Respondent Establishment, hence, the impugned judgment is not sustainable. The offices situated at Karachi and Islamabad are also part and parcel of Lahore Office. Further contended that it is also mentioned in the letter of appointment of the appellant that he may be transferred anywhere in Pakistan in the Respondent Offices, which establish that the offices situated in Pakistan are part and parcel and also one establishment. The definition of establishment is very much clear that the establishment means and includes all its departments and branches whether situated in the same place or in different places having common balance sheet, hence the impugned judgment is against the law and is liable to be set aside and prayed that the appeal be accepted and impugned judgment be set aside.

5. Conversely, the respondent side has vehemently opposed the arguments and grounds of appeal and argued in favour of the impugned judgment.

6. Arguments heard and record perused.

7. Exh.P-1 is letter of appointment of appellant. In para-13 of the appointment letter, it is mentioned that the services of appellant may be terminated by giving three months notice or three months gross salary in lieu thereof The appointment letter was signed by the appellant, he accepted the terms and conditions of appointment letter and thereafter signed it.

8. It is also admitted by the appellant that he received his total dues amounting to Rs.244280/- as his final settlement.

9. While appearing as PW-1 during cross-examination, the appellant categorically admitted that "it is correct that I was appointed as office boy in the Lahore office of respondent corporation. Where total seven permanent employees were working".

10. At another place, the appellant stated that "it is correct that I have no financial claim against the respondent as I have already received total amount due".

11. In view of above statement, the grievance petition filed by the appellant was not maintainable as the relationship of appellant and respondent was of master and servant because the total strength of employees of Lahore office is seven (less than twenty employees) so the labour laws are not applicable with relation to the grievance of the appellant. The appellant shall approach for redressal of his grievance before the appropriate forum and not before the learned Labour Court.

12. This Tribunal do not find any ambiguity, misreading and non-reading of evidence in the impugned judgment. Hence no interference is called for. Appeal is without merit hence is dismissed. HBT/18/PLT Appeal dismissed.