1993 PLP 758 (PLC(CS))
Miss GHOSIA BEGUM and others Versus M/s. SAITEX PHARMACEUTICALS (PVT.) LIMITED, KARACHI and others
| Citation | 1993 PLP 758 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | Miss GHOSIA BEGUM and others Versus M/s. SAITEX PHARMACEUTICALS (PVT.) LIMITED, KARACHI and others |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 758 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 758 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 758 (PLC(CS)) (Miss GHOSIA BEGUM and others Versus M/s. SAITEX PHARMACEUTICALS (PVT.) LIMITED, KARACHI and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 27th April, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑ Termination of service‑‑‑Reinstatement‑‑‑Services of employees who worked in company for about 8 months as "Packing Girls", were terminated forthwith on ground that their services which were of temporary nature, were no more required‑‑‑Evidence on record had fully established that after terminating services of employees, employers had engaged others to replace them‑‑‑Company manufactured medicines and drugs and also supplied its products to its distributors‑‑‑Company was being inspected every year by a Central team of Labour Department and according to Inspection team's report 58 workers were working in it at the relevant time‑‑‑Plea of employer company that job of employees was temporary in nature, was repelled‑‑ Employees were reinstated with back benefits. Ibne Ayub, Representative for the Workers. Muhammad Humayun for the Management.
Judgment & Decree
2. All of them had served the company with grievance notices and had later on riled petitions before the Labour Court No. 1, Karachi.
3. The petitions came to be 'resisted on the grounds that as the appointments were of a temporary nature, the provisions of Standing Order 12(3) and/or 15 would not come into play. Otherwise too their termination of service was in terms of the agreement. It was further said that proviso 2 to subsection (4) of section 1 also precluded the application of Standing Order 15 in respect of establishments where there are not more than 49 workmen.
4. The petitioners were their own witnesses and Abdul Bari Khan, Manager Administration appeared on behalf of the respondent Company.
5. The Labour Court found that the proviso 2 to subsection (4) of section 1 was not attracted in the case. It was further found that the jobs which were being performed by the petitioners were of permanent nature and had not ceased to exist. It therefore allowed the petitions. Shagufta Sultana, Shabana Habib and Darakhshan Perveen were awarded full back benefits but the same was denied to Ghosia Begum and Shaheen Akhtar as they had worked with some other company for sometime.
6. M/s. Saitex Pharmaceuticals (Pvt.) Ltd. have come in appeal against the order of reinstatement while Ghosia Begum and Shaheen Akhtar have assailed that part of the order which has totally denied them back benefits.
7. Mr. Humayun learned counsel for M/s. Saitex Pharmaceuticals (Pvt.) Ltd.; very properly did not repeat the contention regarding the maintainability of the petitions as demonstrably they were tenous in nature. It is therefore not necessary to advert to that aspect of the matter at all.
8. The only question which remains for consideration is whether the services of the respondent were of a temporary nature and could be terminated in terms of the appointment letters.
9. The respondents in their statements had clearly mentioned that after their services had been dispensed with, the appellants had engaged other working hands, who were even named by them. Abdul Bari Khan the witness of the factory began by saying that the work was essentially of a temporary nature and the respondents were given temporary attendance cards. However, he admitted that they are manufacturers of medicines and drugs as ordered by the Ministry of Health, Islamabad. They also supplied their products to their own distributors. He admitted that their factory had been inspected in the month of October by a Central Team of the Labour Department and there was a report which had been given by the team. It was put to him that he had signed the list of 58 workers to the Inspection Team. This was denied, but he had promised to produce the Inspection Report which however was honoured only in breach. He had also to concede "that after the termination of the applicant, workers were appointed in their places". It went on to say that "the workers always work on the post where the present applicants were working".
10. With this unequivocal statement of the factory's witness the protence of the jobs being temporary in nature cannot be sustained. There were packing girls before the employment of the respondents and when they were shown out of the factory's door, there were others to replace them. The tenor of the appointment letters given to the respondents only betray the anxiety of the company to deny a square deal to their employees. The reason given for their removal is manifestly false and unconditional and has been very properly repelled by the Labour Court.
11. All the respondents had clearly mentioned that they were jobless. However, Ghosia Begum stated in cross‑examination that she had worked with another concern for 2‑1/2 months, and Shaheen Akhter stated that she had worked elsewhere for one month. No attempt was made to show that this did not depict the truth nor there was any evidence led to rebut their version.
12. I am therefore of the view that Ghosia Begum and Shaheen Akhtar will be entitled to full back benefits from the date of the termination of their services till they are reinstated, with a deduction of 2‑1/2 months in the case of Ghosia Begum and one month in the case of Shaheen Akhtar. Their appeals are allowed in these terms. The appeal of M/s: Saitex Pharmaceuticals (Pvt.) Ltd. stands dismissed. Orders accordingly H.B.T./2196/Lb.S Orders accordingly.