Find a Lawyer

Appeals Nos. KAR‑50 and 51 of 1985, heard on 7th November, 1985.

‑‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S.2 (ix)‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 1(4)(b)‑‑Cinema‑‑Commercial establishment‑‑Number of employees more than 20‑‑Provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 applicable‑‑Registration under West Pakistan Shops and Establishment Ordinance, 1969 does not oust a cinema from ambit of both Ordinances.

Ali Ahmad for Appellants.

Ch. Muhammad Murad for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 7th November, 1985.

The grievance petitions of Abdul Jabbar and Fateh Muhammad, were decided by the 1st Sind Labour Court at Karachi on 9‑12‑1984. Their grievance petitions were dismissed. I wish to hear both the appeals together and decide the appeals by one common order. It is because the facts are same pertaining to Chairman Cinema, Karachi, as a common respondent.

2. The facts are that, Abdul Jabbar and Fateh Muhammad were the old employees of the respondents and they worked in the Cinema for about 30 years. Suddenly the Chaman Cinema started to repair the premises of the Cinema and renovate it but the employees were given an oral notice that their services are terminated. No written order was given to these two employees. Their services were suddenly terminated. Their services were terminated verbally on 6‑10‑1983 without assigning any reason. The appellants, therefore, filed their respective grievance petitions under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969, before the Sind Labour Court No. I Karachi.

3. The stand of the respondent is that the grievance petitions are not maintainable as the. Cinema was registered under the Shops and Establishments Ordinance, 1969, and, therefore, the provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, are not applicable and also the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, has likewise no application.

4. The evidence was adduced by the two appellants and their witnesses, Raes Ahmad and Javed were also examined. The respondent adduced the evidence of Rafiqur Rehman who was the Manager of the Cinema.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. I may make it clear that the Cinemas come in the ambit of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and for that matter Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, is also applicable to the establishments of the Cinemas which are commercial establishments and there cannot be two opinions with regard to this preposition. There no provision shown to me that if a Cinema is registered under Shops and Establishment Ordinance, the provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 are not applicable. Clearly Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 apply with regard to the Cinemas which are commercial establishments. The evidence led by the appellant disclose that total employees in the said Cinema in the relevant period were more than 20 employees which the respondent do not agree. They have shown a list of 11 employees which were borne on their Payment Register, but, there is evidence of one Raes Ahmad who was an employee of the same Cinema and whose services were terminated in the year 1982. He produced his evidence in the Labour Court wherein he had given the names of 26 employees in the Chaman Cinema. The evidence of Raes Ahmad coupled with the evidence of the appellant indicates that the employees engaged initially for the relevant period were more than 20 persons. It is not a fact that the employees were less than 20 employees as is shown by the Payment Register of the respondent. This register is manipulated by the respondent to show the less employees whereas the Cinema is a big establishment and requires more employees. The verbal termination of the appellants without assigning any reason is the violation of Standing Order 12 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, and hence, it is illegal.

7. As regards the plea that the Cinema was closed. The fact is that it was temporarily closed for repairs and it reopened later on. This closure of the Cinema was not authenticated by the Labour Court and the Labour Court has not allowed the Cinema to do away the services of the employees. The evidence on record shows that the respondent produced a register where they have shown their employees to be either 7 or 10, which evidence is counterplotted by the evidence of the appellants plus the evidence of Raes Ahmad who has not only given the number of employees but the names of the employees also. He mentioned the same in his affidavit filed in evidence before the learned Labour Court in his own case. I, therefore, believe the evidence of the appellants and their witness.

8. As regards the evidence that they were paid one month's pay and the wages and all emoluments by the respondents this fact is not admitted by the appellants and I find from the record that they had made an application to the S.H.O. Ferozeabad Police Station that they had not been paid wages etc. Those poor people went to police not knowing the proper forum of adjudication. This letter which is produced on record indicates that no emoluments or monthly paid wages were paid to the appellants.

9. I am constrained to differ from the impugned order of the learned Labour Court and set aside the same and re‑instate the appellants in these appeals.

10. However, the back benefits are not allowed because Abdul Jabbar worked with a Tobacco Company in the morning and had a gainful employment. In the case of Fateh Muhammad, no proof is given that he was not employed anywhere else and he also is not awarded back benefits.

11. I, therefore, allow these two appeals accordingly with no back benefits.

A. E. Appeals allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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