2010 PLC 17 (PLP)

SYED QALB-I-HASSAN, J.

This judgment shall deal with and decide Labour Appeal No.4 of 2006, L.A. No.5 of 2006 and L.A. No.7 of 2006 for being an identical question of law and facts.

2. All the above three labour appeals have arisen out of petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, filed by the appellants in the Court of District Judge/Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Islamabad.

3. Brief facts of the appeals are that the appellants were appointed as Security Guards at Saudi Arabia Embassy, Islamabad and thereafter embassy entered into a contract with Zim Security (Pvt.) Limited, Islamabad, a private security provider, however, the appellants were retained by the said Zim Security (Pvt.) Limited and remained performing their duties under the said company when the appellants were terminated from their services. The appellants filed grievance petition in the Court of District Judge, Islamabad (Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Islamabad). The respondents entered appearance and contested petitions by filing replies to the petitions. The petitions were mainly contested on the ground that no grievance notices were served to the employer. The appellants do not fall with the category of workman; drawing salary of $.170 (U.S.$) equal to , an amount of Rs.9,860 and the appellants are temporary employees therefore., the petitions are not maintainable. The parties were directed to produce their respective evidence and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Labour Court, Islamabad dismissed petitions through separate judgments on 2-5-2005 on the ground that no grievance notices were served to the employer, therefore, petitions are not maintainable.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the learned Labour Court has not appreciated the evidence in his true perspective; that the grievance notices were duly marked in the evidence but the same were not taken into consideration on the ground that no dates were mentioned on it or even otherwise the notices were not proved in accordance with law. Learned counsel further contended that the learned Labour Court fell in a grave error of law while passing the impugned judgments on mere technicalities which resulted into miscarriage of justice.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contested the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants and contended that the appellants are bound to prove the service of grievance notices to maintain the petition under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969 but the appellants have miserably failed to prove the same, therefore, learned Labour Court, Islamabad has dismissed the petitions in accordance with law. Learned counsel further contended that right of employer to organize running of his affairs was an internal matter and to look into the security problems which are being faced by the country, no fault can be attributed with the decision of .the employer who wants to improve security measures in view of the prevailing circumstances. Learned counsel has relied upon Khushal Khan v. Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. and others 2002 SCMR 943, Punjab Road Transport Board v. Allah Yar 1984 PLC 660, Shaheen Khan v. The Presiding Officer I, First Sindh Labour Court, Karachi and another 1994 PLC 616 to support his contentions.

6. Arguments heard. Record perused.

7. That the appellants were initially recruited by the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia camp at Islamabad and thereafter the security of the Embassy was handed over to Zim Securities (Pvt.) Limited, however, the appellants were retained by the said Private Company. That vide letter dated 14-1-2002, the Security Manager of Embassy wrote a letter to the General Manager, Zim Securities (Pvt.) Limited and paras.3 and 4 of the said letter are relevant and the same are reproduced as here:-- "(3) Keeping in view the general health state and mental readiness, you are directed to discharge persons, who have attained the age of 55 years and above. (4) Replacement of these, when required will be intimated to you, against which you will hire young, educated physically fit persons preferably retired recently from Armed Forces, at the salary package of US$ 120 (US Dollars one hundred and twenty only)." The respondents are bound to provide facilities of security guards to the Embassy of Saudi Arabia to their satisfaction and in this view of the matter the respondents are not at fault to appoint new security guards to improve security arrangements in view of the prevailing circumstances of the country. The appellants have although averred in their petitions that the grievance notices were served to the respondents through post and allegedly the same were not received by the respondents but there is no iota of evidence on the record that notices were dispatched or refused by the respondents. The appellants are bound to prove the dispatch or delivery of grievance notices to the respondents but they have miserably failed to prove the same. The Honourable Supreme Court in Khushal Khan v. Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. and others 2002 SCMR 943 held in the following:

"Petitioner had initiated incompetent proceedings against the respondent as no grievance notice under section 25-A had been issued, as such High Court had rightly declined him the relief

Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal and dismissed the petition in circumstances."

8. In view of what has been discussed above and law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court, all the above titled appeals have no force and the same are dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./S-258/Isl. Appeals dismissed.