Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Appeal No. HYD‑608 of 1982, heard on 7th August, 1985.
‑‑ Ss. 2(viii) & 25‑A‑‑Grievance notice upon employer ‑Workman transferred to a project under Site Engineer‑‑Notice upon such Site Engineer being Agent of Firm, held deemed to be service upon employer.
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Termination of service ‑Labour Court accepting grievance petition directing re‑instatement with back benefits‑‑Back benefits deposited with Labour Court and Order of Labour Court appealed against‑‑Employer during arguments before Appellate Tribunal stating that project having been closed impugned order of Labour Court could not be fulfilled or enforced and suggesting for payment of Rs.10,000 as compensation to petitioner workman‑‑Proposition, in circumstances, held, fair and equitable‑‑Appellate Tribunal directing payment of Rs.10,000 as compensation out of amount of back benefits already deposited alongwith remaining amount of back benefits to workman.
M.L. Shahani for Appellant.
Wasiullah Qureshi for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 7th August, 1985.
The instant appeal arises out of the order, dated 10‑11‑1982 of the Sind Labour Court No. VI at Hyderabad Following is the Order:‑‑
"As result of above discussion I accept this application and direct the respondent to take the applicant on duty immediately and to pay back benefits to him."
2. The facts of the case briefly narrated are that the respondent served with the appellants since 1978, as a Time‑keeper. He was transferred to Fauji Sugar Mills on 27‑6‑1980. The respondent resumed on 27‑6‑1980. The respondent remained on leave from 7‑8‑1980 to 16‑8‑1980. Where after he was not taken up in the service and his services, without a written order were terminated. He filed grievance petition, which was allowed by the Sind Labour Court at Hyderabad. The Management came in appeal before this Tribunal and the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Labour Court to determine whether the appellant No. 1 was the employer or the appellant No. 2 was the employer and whether the notice on the employer No 1 was necessary or the notice on appellant No. 2 was necessary. Further evidence was not led by any party and after answering the two queries; the Labour Court passed the order as quoted above. This appeal is against that order.
3. The Labour Court answered the two points raised by the Tribunal that the respondent was required to serve the grievance notice upon his employer vide subsection (2) of section 25‑A, I.R.0. 1969. 'Employer' as per section 2(8) of I.R.O. 1969, includes any person who employs workmen in the establishment under a contract of employment. 'Employer includes any person responsible for the management, supervision and control of the establishment, vide clause (b) of section 2(8) of I. R.O. 1969. Appellants' witness, Muhammad Anwar admitted in cross‑examination that the respondent was placed under him in the Fauji Sugar Mills, Tando Muhammad Khan on his transfer to Tando Muhammad Khan in the month of June, 1982. This shows that Muhammad Anwar, Site Engineer of the respondent at Tando Muhammad Khan became employer of the respondent after latter's transfer to Tando Muhammad Khan. Consequently service of grievance notice upon Muhammad Anwar who was agent of the appellants at Tando Muhammad Khan was deemed to be service of such notice upon the appellants.
4. The matter was argued by Mr. M.L. Shahani for the appellants and Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi for the respondent. The Labour Court maintained that Standing Orders were applicable in the instant case. It was not established by evidence that there were less than 20 persons working at Fauji Sugar Mills of the appellants.
5. While in arguments Mr. M.L. Shahani made a statement before this Tribunal that the projects of the appellants are closed, no business is available with the appellants and hence, the order passed by the Labour Court cannot be fulfilled or enforced. In view of the order, he B prayed that Rs.10,000 may be given to the respondent as compensation, I feel that this proposition in view of the closure of the project and in view of the non‑availability of the employment, is fair and equitable. This is an old matter hence I hereby order that out of the back benefits, already deposited by the appellants in Sind Labour Court No. VI at Hyderabad, an amount of Rs.10,000 may be given to the respondent as compensation and remainder from the back benefits be also paid to the respondent forthwith. This appeal is, therefore, disposed of in the terms of my above observations.
Orders accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer