1993 PLP 210 (PLC)

Noor Ahmed, Admn. Officer for the Management. Date of hearing: 15th April, 1992. Hameedullah alongwith one person by the name of Nausher Khan in Appeal No. KAR‑151 of 1991 after settling the preliminaries as envisaged under the labour laws had filed the petition in the Labour Court against the present respondent and one Shaukat Ali the contractor of the Weaving Section of the said mill for their reinstatement in service. Later Nausher Khan had lost interest in the proceedings and his name was struck off. In Appeal No. KAR 110 of 1991 Wali Muhammad had also in the same circumstances filed a petition alongwith 2 other persons Ali Muhammad and Gul Khan against respondent No.1 Mill and a contractor by the name of Khurshid. The other 2 applicants had withdrawn from the contest and only Muhammad Wali remained in the field.

2. Their case was that they were actually the employees of the mill but it had set up fictitious contractors in the Weaving Section just to circumvent the benefits of the labour laws to their, workers. The petition made out that when the. Appellants had started pressing for their rights, the management of the Mill decided to axe them and they were gate‑stopped on the 4th of October, 1989. They had sent grievance notices to the mill and to their contractors but without any results. Thereupon they had to file the grievance petition as referred to above.

3. The respondent‑mill in the reply statements in both the petitions denied any relationship with the appellants and maintained that it had nothing to do with the termination of their services as alleged. In both the petitions the contractors maintained that the appellants were their employees but their services were terminated because of their long absence from their duties. The applicants in both the petitions were their own witnesses. Similarly there was one witness on behalf of the respondent mill.

4. The learned Presiding Officer for the reasons given by him dismissed the petition.

5. I propose to dispose of the two appeals by a common decision. Admittedly, apart from the mere words of the appellants alone in both the cases, there is not even a shred of documentary evidence forthcoming in support of their version. The presence of the contractors in the Weaving Section is not denied, and they were made parties to the proceedings. All that is being urged on behalf of the appellants is that they are just dummies to deprive the workers of their rightful benefits. Even circumstances do not faintly indicate that the lease‑deeds of the Weaving Section are not genuine.

6. There is no force in these appeals. I will therefore uphold the order of the Labour Court and dismiss both these appeals. H.B.T./2051/Lb.S Appeals dismissed.