Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: NAZIR AHMED VS Respondent: GILLETTE PAKISTAN LIMITED
2001 S C M R 190
2001 S C M R 190
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri, Mian Muhammad Ajmal and Deedar Hussain Shah, JJ
NAZIR AHMED and another---Appellants
versus
GILLETTE PAKISTAN LIMITED and others---Respondents
Civil Appeals Nos. 1501 and 1502 of 1997, decided on 31st May, 2000.
(On appeal from the order of the High Court of Balochistan, dated 20-6-1995 passed in Civil Petitions Nos. 131 of 1995 and 13 of 1995).
(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)----
----S.25-A---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether the order of High Court, that the petitioners were not the employees of employer company but were personal drivers of the officers of the company and their applications under S.25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 were not maintainable, was sustainable on the evidence on record.
(b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)---
----S.25-A---Grievance petition---Termination of service---Failure to regularize and confirm the services of employees---Employer company terminated the services of employees without notice on the ground that they were not the employees of the company---Labour Court accepted the grievance petition acid reinstated the employees, the judgment was reversed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal---High Court dismissed the Constitutional petition of the employees against the order of Appellate Tribunal in limine and did not consider and discuss evidence produced by the parties Validity ---Appointment letters and admissions of witnesses established that -the employees were in employment of the company and the services were terminated without assigning any reason or issuing any formal written order, which resulted in displacement of the employees---Order of the High Court as well as the judgment of the Labour Appellate Tribunal were set aside and that of Labour Court was upheld by Supreme Court.
(c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---
----Art.187---Jurisdiction of Supreme Court---Scope---Supreme Court being at the apex, is competent under Art. 187 of the Constitution to pass any order, decree and issue directions for the advancement of complete/substantial justice---Mere technicalities cannot restrain the Supreme Court in rendering complete and substantial justice as envisaged under Art. 187 of the Constitution.
Mehta K.N Kohli, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants. Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Zaidi, Advocate- on-Record for Respondent No. 1.
Date of hearing: 31st May, 2000.
JUDGMENT DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---We propose to dispose of both these appeals by common judgment as same arise out of same impugned judgment and common points of law and facts are involved.
2. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that appellants in Appeal No. 1501 of 1997 and Ghulam Ali in Appeal No. 1502 of 1997 had been working with Gillette Pakistan Limited, respondent No. 1, as Driver since 25-1-1990 and 16-5-1991 respectively. Both the appellants submitted their applications for regularization and confirmation in accordance with the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. On receipt of the said applications,, their services were terminated without notice or reason and even without written order with effect from 31-5-1993. Against their termination from services, the appellants filed separate grievance petitions before the IIIrd Labour Court, Balochistan, Hub under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) praying for their reinstatement in the service with full back benefits.
3. The respondent filed objections, controverted the averments of the appellants and denied that the appellants were employees of the company but they were appointed as their personal drivers by senior officers of the respondents. During pendency of the grievance petitions, the appellants filed their affidavit-in-evidence alongwith that of Sattar whereas on behalf of the respondent one Syed Kazim Ali, an employee of the respondents field affidavit-in-evidence, The Labour Court framed two issues, namely, whether there existed relationship of employer and employee between the parties and whether the appellants are entitled to relief claimed for?
4. At the conclusion of the case, learned trial Court allowed the applications of the appellants as prayed for. The respondents impugned the order of the Labour Court before the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal, Balochistan which accepted the appeals of the respondents and reversed the judgment of the Labour Court
5. The appellants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the findings of the learned Tribunal separately filed Civil Petitions Nos. 131 and 132 of 1995 which were dismissed in limine by the learned High Court of Balochistan vide order, dated 20-6-1995.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, this Court granted leave in both the appeals to consider whether the impugned order of the learned High Court that the petitioners were not the employees of respondent No.1 company but were personal drivers of the officers of the respondent company and their applications under section 25A of the Ordinance were not maintainable is sustainable on the evidence on record.
7. We have heard Mr. Mehta K.N. Kohli, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Muhammad Munir Peracha, learned counsel for respondent No. l Mr. Kohli submitted that the appellants were employed by the respondents-company as their drivers. He has also referred to appointment letters of both the appellants to show that monthly remuneration, annual leave, fare assistance, medical assistance leave, schedule of work, other assigned work, uniform, contractual obligations, termination of employment and terminal gratuity are indicated in terms unequivocal. He has also referred to the affidavit-in-evidence of Syed Kazim Ali in which the witness in his cross-examination had admitted certain facts which will be highlighted hereafter. Mr. Kohli further submitted that learned High Court of Balochistan did not minutely consider and discuss the evidence produced by the parties during trial which resulted in the miscarriage of justice to, the appellants.
8. Mr. Muhammad Munir Peracha, learned counsel for the respondents with vehemence pointed out that the factual controversies were involved in the matter and the learned High Court of Balochistan with cogent reasons has rightly dismissed the petitions in limine with which no exception can be taken.
9. We have gone through the material placed on the record. It would be advantageous to reproduce the contents of the appointment letters issued in favour of the appellants both containing the same terms and conditions:-----
'This is to confirm your appointment as my personal driver effective August 1, 1990 on the following terms and conditions:
1. MONTHLY REMUNERATION:
Your gross monthly remuneration payable by me at the end of each month will be Rs.2,054 broken up as under:--
Basic salary Rs.1,244 House Rent Allowance, 45% Rs. 560 Conveyance Allowance, 10% Rs. 125 Utilities Allowance, 10% Rs. 125 ----------- Rs.2,054 -----------
(2) Annual Leave Fare Assistance.--You will be entitled to Leave fare