1988 PLP 105 (PLC)

Date of hearing: 19th April, 1987. These are two appeals filed by the appellants against impugned orders, dated 16‑7‑1985, passed by the Sind Labour Court No.I, Karachi, who had dismissed the grievance petitions of the appellants filed under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969. As the facts and other circumstances in both these appeals are somewhat similar and common, therefore, I propose to dispose of both these appeals by this single decision.

2. Facts of the cases are that the appellants were the permanent employees of the respondent establishment. It was alleged that as the conditions of employment of the workers in the establishment were being exploited and they were deprived of all benefits and had no security of service, therefore, the appellants along with other workers had formed a union in April 1985 under the name and style of 'The Phonex Pakistan Ltd. Workers Union Karachi and an application for its registration was submitted before the Registrar of Trade Unions, Government of Sind Karachi, and on other hand, the respondent establishment was duly informed about the formation of the union and the names of the office‑bearers. According to the appellants, Appellant Muhammad Ali was elected 49 president while Appellant Muhammad Khan as propaganda secretary. Further, according to the appellants the union was registered on 23‑g‑1983 and thereafter the respondent establishment became hostile against them and stgrted harassment and intimidation etc. resulting in that they were issued false charge‑sheets and holding a fake enquiry, both of them Were dismissed from the service. Then, the appellants after compliance of the legal requirements, had filed their respective grievance petitions before the learned Labour Court.

3. The respondent establishment has resisted the petitions mainly on the legal objection that as both of them were the employees of Agha Khan Hospital and Medical College Foundation, therefore, the provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 were not applicable to them and the petitions were liable to be, dismissed. The respondent establishment further claimed that they were simply the contractor of Agha Khan Hospital and Medical College Foundation, therefore, were not the employers of the appellants. As regards the merits of the cases, the respondent establishment had submitted that after holding a proper and lawful domestic enquiry and complying with the legal requirements, the services of the appellants were rightly dismissed.

4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits‑in‑evidence and they were duly cross‑examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court had dismissed the grievance petitions of the appellants, hence, these two appeals. 5. 1 have heard Mr. S. P. Lodhi, the learned representative for' the appellants, Mr. Ismat Mehdi, the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent establishment, was not present. Mr. S. P. Lodhi for the appellants has submitted that as the respondent establishment was a limited concern, therefore, only a Director or Manager of it could legally contest the petitions and/or any other person, duly authorised, JA but no such authority was executed by the respondent establishment in the present case in favour of one Altaf Malik, Labour Officer in the respondent establishment. Further, this Altaf Malik was neither an employer within the meaning of the provisions of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, nor a properly and duly authorised person, either to appoint an enquiry officer, to issue an alleged charge‑sheet, to issue a dismissal order, or even to engage/appoint any lawyer etc. on behalf of the respondent establishment, therefore, all proceedings against the appellants, taken by such an admittedly incompetent person became infructuous and not sustainable. As regards the merits of the case, it is proved from the record that the domestic enquiry, alleged to have been conducted against the appellants, was quite perverse illegal and biased as well as contrary to admitted principles of law. Therefore, the dismissal of the appellants basing on an enquiry report of such type of enquiry, could not be maintained, hence the dismissal order of both appellants is set aside.

6. For the reasons stated by me above, I set aside the impugned order and would allow these two appeals. Both the appellants are directed to be re‑instated in service with fifty per cent back benefits, forthwith. S.Q. /1031/Lb.S Appeals allowed.