Find a Lawyer

Appeals Nos. KAR-308 to 310 of 1981, heard on 1st December, 1981.

-- Ss. 25-A & 38-Grievance petition against alleged wrongful verbal termination of service-Petition resisted by establishment on grounds that there was no relationship of master and servant as petitioner was employee of contractor running mills on contract-Neither any appointment letter nor attendance register or payment register available to support verbal assertion of being employee of establishment respondent -Written contract indicating that engagement of workers was responsibility of contractor produced by respondent-Grievance petition against respondent establishment, in circumstances, held, rightly dismissed by Labour Court holding that petitioner had no legal claim against respon dent.

Sultan Ansari for Appellants.

Syed Izhar Ahmed for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 1st December, 1981.

The three appellants filed separate grievance petitions in the learned. Third Labour Court alleging that they were permanent workmen of the respondent mills, but when they formed a Trade Union to protect their interest they were called by the management to disassociate themselves from this union and when they refused to do so their services were orally and illegally terminated by the respondent mills. One Feroze Khan, who claimed to be employed as jobber in the respondent mills, had also filed a grievance petition making similar allegations .as the present appellants and prayed for re-instatement in service with full back, back benefits. All these four grievance petitions were heard together by the learned Labour Court and they were decided by its consolidated decision given on 31st May, 1981- The learned Labour Court dismissed all the grievance petitions holding that the appellants and jobber Feroze Khan were not the employees of the respondent mills but of contractor Mirza Abdul Ghani, and hence there was no relation ship of employer and workmen between the appellants or jobber Feroze Khan and the respondent mills. Aggrieved by this decision, the three appellants have preferred separate appeals to this Tribunal. This order will dispose off all the three appeals. It may be mentioned here that jobber Feroze Khan appears to have been satisfied with the decision of the learned Labour Court for he has not fled any appeal against the said order.

2. I have heard Mr. Sultan Ansari, the learned representative for the appellants, and Mr. Syed Izhar Ahmed who appeared for the respondent mills. The sole point which was convassed before this Tribunal by Mr. Sultan Ansari was that the appellants were the employees of the respondent mills and had formed a workers' union which was duly regis tered with the Registrar Trade Unions. He also strongly disputed the fact that the work of the Weaving Department had been given on con tract by the respondent mills to Mirza Abdul Ghani, and contended that the plea of the respondent mills that the appellants were the employees of the contractor, Abdul Ghani and the mills had no concern with their employment is false and unfounded. In order to determine whether the contention of Mr. Sultan Ansari had any foundation, this Tribunal con sidered it necessary to examine the Factory Inspector, Mr. Jalilur Rehman, and the Labour Officer, Trade Unions, Mr. Ghulam Qadir. The evidence of Mr. Jalilur Rehman is to the effect that no intimation of letting out' of the mills to Abdul Ghani or any one else had been given to him. According to him such intimation would be required to be given to him wherever there was a change in the employer. However, he was unable to refer to any provision of law requiring the giving of such intimation to the Factory Inspector. Even if it be assumed that the letting out of a part or whole of a factory is required to be intimated to the Factory Inspector, as stated by Factory Inspector, Mr. Jalilur Rehman, the failure on the part of the respondent mills .to intimate to him the contract entered by the mills with contractor Abdul Ghani would not by itself make the contract illegal but may make the mills liable for contravention of the law requiring the giving of such information by the Factory Manager.

3. The second witness examined by this Tribunal namely, Labour Officer, Trade Unions. Mr. Ghulam Qadir has stated that there are two trade unions in the respondent mills, namely, Allied Royan Mills Wor kers' Union and Allied Rayon Mills Mahnatkar Union, that both the unions had applied for registration, that both the applications were accompanied by the list of employees said to be members of the respective unions and that both the unions had been registered by the Registrar of Trade Unions. He has further testified that the name of Mushtaq Ahmed, one of the appellants, appears in the list of members of the Allied Rayon Mills Mahnatkar Union and that he, in fact, has been shown as General Secretary of the Union. His evidence, however, does not establish that the appellants are employees of the respondent mills for the witness has clearly admitted that the Departments had not verified the list of members either of the Allied Rayon Mills Mahnatkar Union or Allied Rayon Mills Workers' Union to sae whether the names given in the list were of the employees or workmen in the said mills. It has, therefore, to be seen whether there is other evidence to show and establish that in fact the appellants are the employees of the respondent mills. No doubt all the three appellants have claimed that they are employees of the respondent mills and have denied that they are employees of contractor Abdul Ghani whom they have termed as a Weaving Master in the. Respondent mills but they were unable to produce their letters of appointment, atten dance cards or any other documentary evidence in support of their con tention. The law requires that an industrial establishment must give to its workman an order of appointment and also he must be furnished in writing with the terms and conditions of his employment. Since the appellants have failed to produce any such document, it cannot be said that they are employees of the respondent mills. It may be mentioned that no payment sheet or attendance register of the respondent mills was summond or called-for by the appellants to establish that they were the employees of and receiving payments from the respondent mills. As against the bare allegation of the appellants that they were employees of the respondent mills and not of contractor Abdul Ghani there is evidence of the Manager of the respondent mills, Shaikh Muhammad Ashraf, that) the factory had been given on contract to Mirza Abdul Ghani, who was running the same and that the appellants were employees of the said contractor. He is supported by the contract entered into by the respon dent mills with Abdul Gbani. According to that contract, the contractor was to engage his own workers who were to be deemed to be his employees for all purposes. Furthermore, all types of payments, including wages, were to be made to such employees by the contractor and the company was not to be, responsible for the workers recruited by the contractor. The respon dent mills have also examined contractor Mirza Abdul Ghani who also admitted that he had taken the mills on contract and that he had em ployed the appellants. In view of this evidence, it is not possible to hold that the appellants are the employees of the respondent mills.

4. I would, therefore, concur in the view taken by the learned Labour Court that the appellants are employees of contractor Abdul Ghani and have no legal claim on the respondent mills and; would, accor dingly, dismiss all the three appeals.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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