Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑15 of 1983, decided on 22nd July, 1985.

‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 1(4)‑‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Requirements for filing of‑‑Services of employee terminated by employer without assigning any reason‑‑Dispute as to applicability of Ordinance VI of 1968‑‑Instrument of settlement between employer and employees mentioning fourteen persons as employees of establishment‑‑Such instrument having been written seven months before grievance petition of terminated employee‑‑Instrument of settlement between parties, held, was reliable document with regard to persons employed by employer establishment‑‑Ordinance VI of 19.68 would not apply as the employer establishment employed less than statutory twenty persons as employees.

M.L. Shahani for Appellant.

Zamirul Hassan for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 19th March, 1985.

This is an appellant pending since long. One Islam, the appellant filed the grievance petition under section 25‑A I.R.O., 1969 for his re‑instatement in service with full back benefits. The Labour Court No. V at Karachi dismissed the petition. One another person by name Muneer also filed similar petition in the Labour Court which was also dismissed. In the appeal filed before this Tribunal was decided on 10‑8‑19bl1 and the appeal was dismissed. The appellant went in Writ Petition before the High Court of Sind who allowed the Writ Petition directing this Tribunal to rehear the appeal and dispose it of according to law. The appellant, Islam claimed that he was an employee of Messrs Cafe‑De‑Khan (the respondents in the present case) since 7 years. But, all of a sudden oil 15‑7‑1979, the respondents called the appellant and informed him that his services were no longer required and, therefore, he was asked to go away. The allegation of the appellant is that the termination of the appellant from service was not valid, unwarranted and contravened the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, which is applicable to the respondents. He claimed that there were 30 workmen working in the respondent‑establishment.

2. Oil the other hand, respondent submitted a reply statement containing therein that the application of the appellant is not maintainable as the appellant had no right guaranteed or securd under any law, award or settlement. It was contended that the respondents had not employed 20 or more persons in the preceding 12 months, hence, the Standing Orders Ordinance did not apply. The respondents further contended that the appellant was not an employee of the respondents as a Writer and that on 2‑8‑1978, the appellant had approached the respondents and requested that he may be given the products of the respondents to be sold outside the respondent's premises on commission basis. In other words, he used to purchased the products and sold them to others outside the restaurant and was to collect commission from the respondent‑establishment. This request was acceded to by the respondents. But all the same the respondents denied that the appellant was discharged from service.

3. The record of the Labour Court was perused by me. Arguments of the learned Advocate, Mr. M.L. Shahani for the appellant and Mr. S. Zamirul Hassan, representative for the respondents were heard. The matter was argued at length.

4. The arguments revolved round the point whether the Standing Orders were applicable in case the respondents employed less than 20 persons in their establishment. The evidence of Islam appearing at Exh. 3, page 43 of the R & P at para. 4 shows that at the time the appellant was removed from service, there were 28 persons working in the respondent‑establishment, the list whereof he had given in his affidavit. He was cross‑examined by Zamirul Hassan, the learned Advocate. The affidavit given be Islam according to scrutiny is of doubtful character. The number of persons working with the respondents could be seen at Annexure 'X', page 27 of the Labour Court record. This is a memorandum of settlement between the workers and the employer and it was signed on 15‑1‑1979. In the settlement, the number of workers is clearly given to be 14 at clause (a). It includes cook, Nanwala etc and helper. The terms and conditions are mentioned in the said settlement. Demand. No. 2 in the settlement contemplates as under:-

That it has been agreed by both the parties that the management shall continue to issue the letters of appointment and identity cards to each workman showing their service particulars etc. It has further been agreed by both the parties that at the time of the employee leaving service he shall hand over the identity card to the management."

5. The instrument of settlement which was written on 15‑1‑1979 about 7 months before the grievance petition of Islam puts a condition that identity cards are got to be issued by the management. Islam did not show any identity card whatsoever. The document, namely, the settlement in between the parties in a reliable document and one can come to a safe conclusion. The affidavits of Islam or Naseer are doubtful and unreliable. The number of employees‑ as mentioned in the said document is only 14. It decides the entire matter and the Standing Orders, as such, ‑are not applicable in the present case.

6. On this point atone, I would decide this long pending case and dismiss it as such. No other points need to be discussed, as it would be unnecessary. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

A.A.

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.