Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: GUL RAO KHAN VS Respondent: MESSRS BISMILLAH SILK INDUSTRIES
1988 P L C 75
1988 P L C 75
[Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind)
Present: Ali Nawaz Budhani, Appellate Tribunal
GUL RAO KHAN and others
versus
Messrs BISMILLAH SILK INDUSTRIES
Appeals Nos. KAR‑39 to 47 of 1987, decided on 21st April, 1987.
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑---
‑‑‑Ss.25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Termination of services‑‑Appellant workers admitting in cross‑examination that they were not employees of respondent establishment; they did not know how and why petitions were filed on their behalf while same did not bear their signatures‑‑No relationship of master and servant existing between appellant workers and respondent establishment‑‑Question of any malice or victimization as alleged by appellants, therefore, not arising in case‑‑Held, order of Labour Court below dismissing grievance petitions of appellants was unexceptionable in circumstances.
Malik Muhammad Ayub for Appellants. Date of hearing: 21st April, 1987.
DECISION
These are nine (9) appeals filed by each appellant against a common impugned order, dated 30‑11‑1986, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. I Karachi, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellants under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969. As the facts and circumstances as well as the impugned order is similar and common, therefore, I propose to dispose of all these nine (9) appeals by this single decision.
2. Brief facts of the case are that all these appellants claimed to have been working in the respondent establishment as weavers since a long time and they were also permanent workers. The workers of the establishment had formed a union on 4‑4‑1986 which annoyed the respondent establishment. As a consequence of the form‑action of the Union, the respondent establishment had terminated the services of all the appellants on 29‑4‑1986 and as their claim it was an oral termination. However, all of them had filed grievance petition before the Labour Court.
3. The respondent establishment had resisted the petitions of the appellants on the ground that there was no relationship of master and servant between the appellants and the respondent establishment. As regards the merits of the case it was denied that as the appellants were never their employees, therefore, the question of becoming annoyed on account of formation of a trade union, did not arise. The respondent establishment submitted that the petitions be dismissed as not maintainable.
4. Both the parties filed the affidavits‑in‑evidence and they were duly cross‑examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court had dismissed the grievance petitions, hence these nine (9) appeals.
5. I have heard Mr. Malik Muhammad Ayub, the learned Advocate for the appellants. The appellants have no case whatsoever in support of their appeals. It is an admitted position on the record that almost all the appellants, in their cross‑examination had admitted that, either they are not the employees of the respondent establishment; or they did not know that how, why the petitions were filed on their behalf while they did not bear the signatures. This admission clearly establishes the case of the respondent establishment that there was A no relationship of master and servant between the appellants and the respondent establishment. I would, therefore, hold that there was no such relationship between them. As regards the merits of the case, it is again an admitted position that when there was no relationship j of master and servant between the appellant and the management, therefore, the question of any malice or victimization does not arise.
6. For the reasons stated by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Labour Court and maintain the B impugned order. All these nine (9) appeals are accordingly dismissed in limine.
M.Y.H./1013/Lb.S
Appeals dismissed