Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑498 of 1976, heard on 18th May 1977.

‑ S. 2(xxviii)‑‑‑"Workman" ‑ "Contractor" ‑‑ Person issued Social Security card, treated as a member of Collective Bargaining Agent, contributing regularly towards Union fund, paid yearly bonus regularly‑Contention that such person was a contractor rejected and, held, a workman.

Masood Mirza for Appellant.

K. D. Brohi for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 18th May 1977.

This is an appeal against the order of the Labour Court ordering re instatement of the respondent on an application made under section 25‑A, Industrial Relations Ordinance.

2. The respondent claimed that he was in the employment of the appellant and his service was orally terminated on 1st October, 1975. He served a grievance notice and approached the Labour Court. The application was contested and it was pleaded that the respondent was not in the employment of the appellant, but he was contractor and, therefore, his application under section 25‑A, Industrial Relations Ordinance was not maintainable.

3. Evidence was tendered by both the parties. On the assessment of the evidence the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the respondent was a workman and the termination of the service was vitiated for want of charge‑sheet and inquiry. Consequently, he ordered reinstatement. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal had been filed.

4. On perusal of the record and proceedings and hearing the arguments I see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer. There is a bulk of evidence oral as well as documentary to establish that the respondent was not a contractor and consequently, he could make an application under section 25‑A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, as he was a workman within the meaning of Industrial Relations Ordinance. The oral evidence consisted of some witnesses to support the respondent. The Social Security Card was issued to the respondent and this could only be issued to a workman and not to a contractor as has been deposed by Mr. Anwar Ali Memon, Social Security Officer. It was also established by the document dated 12th June, 1969 that the work of contract was totally stopped and thereafter all those persons who were engaged as contractors were given a choice to work as employees of the appellant. The respondent joined the appellant on 25th March, 1970 as stated by Mr. Masood Mirza before me. So the question of employing a contractor after 1969 did not arise. It is an admitted position that the respondent was treated as a member of the C. B. A.' and regularly deductions from his wages in respect of the Union subscription were made. This could not be done unless he was as employ of the appellant. It has also been contended on behalf of the respondent that he was paid yearly bonus like other employees. The evidence tendered on behalf of the appellant is unreliable and was rightly rejected by the learned Presiding Officer.

5. In result the appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.