Respondent No. 2 was confirmed as a peon by the petitioners w. e. f. 1-1-1964. In 1965 the respondent was promoted as a clerk. In 1968 he left the petitioner and joined Hard Castel Waud (Pakistan) Ltd. In June 1968 he joined Salko Corporation Limited as despatch clerk. He left in June 1974 and joined in July 1974 Akmo Trading Co. Ltd. And continued up to 30-6-1975. Akmo then terminated services of the respondent. These were separate companies with common Directors.
The first company is Public Limited while the other companies are Private Limited Companies.
2. It is case of the petitioner that respondents' connection with the petitioner had accordingly terminated when he had left them in April, 1968.
3. It is the case of respondent Saleh Muhammad Ali that he continued to be in service of petitioner until his services were terminated on 30-6-1975. He has relied upon documentary evidence, viz. Letters written on 14th July 1972 and 2-3-1974 acknowledging that respondent was in service of Indus Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Limited. Since all these companies had the place of business in the same building, the Management kept assigning the respondent to one company or the other. But he continued to remain in service with the original Company.
4. The Junior Labour Court in judgment dated 15-11-1975 declined to interfere with the termination order passed by Messrs Akmo Trading Company Limited against the applicant and held that the applicant having left Messrs Indus Dyeing Company had no cause of action against that company.
5. In appeal, the Fifth Labour Court, Karachi set aside the above order by judgment dated 24-1-1975, holding that the respondent continued to work for the present petitioner Indus Company. That his services were, therefore, wrongfully terminated and he was entitled to be re-instated in service. The Labour Court had pointed out in the judgment that Indus Company had failed to produce any letter terminating the service of Saleh Muhammad. Nor was there any fresh letter of appointment issued by the sister concerns. On the other hand there were letters for curfew pass, etc. Proving that Saleh Muhammad continued to work for Indus Company upto 1975.
6. Mr. Mansoor Ahmed has argued on behalf of petitioners, that respondent Saleh Muhammad was not an employee of Indus Company when his services were terminated. The sister concerns were separate juristic persons and for any action taken by them, the petitioner cannot be held responsible. That the burden lay heavily on the respondent to show that he continued to be employee of the petitioner and he has not been able to discharge that burden. Every Company is a body corporate and a legal person and act of one Company cannot be attributed to the other Company.
7. It has also been argued that jurisdiction of Labour Court could not be involved under section 25- A as the respondent was not a "Worker" within the meaning of section 2 (xxviti) of the I. R. O. Working for hire or reward for the petitioner. That unless he worked for consideration he would not be a worker of petitioner-Company. By taking work from employee of sister concern, the petitioner would not incur any liability under the I. R. O.
8. Mr. Asad Ali Bilgrami has on the other hand argued that this petition is unauthorised since there is no resolution of the Indus Company for such petition to be filed, as held in PLD 1971 SC 550.
9. Regarding the plea that the respondent did not continue as employee of the petitioner, Mr. Bilgrami has pointed out that there is no letter termina--ting the service of the respondent by the petitioner Company nor any letter of appointment by Messrs Salko. Mr. Bilgrami relied on the documentary evidence produced by him, viz. (1) The letter for curfew pass for Saleh Muhammad issued by petitioner in 1972, (2) the letter from petitioners to Post Master General to allow them to frank tae letters of sister concern also on their machine, (3) Letter addressed to Indus Company by G. P. O. In reply, and (4) the cheque issued by Indus Company to G. P. O. For franking machine account. There is also a loan application form showing loan paid by Akmo Company to the respondent a Clerk, his date of confirmation shown being 1963. Mr. Bilgrami has explained that different names had been given showing different companies as employers, for the purpose of saving income tax. The employees were being shown to be employees of these different sister concerns, though actually they were employees of the main concern and received payment for that work. Even otherwise if the respondent's services are loaned to a sister concern and he received payment from there, yet he continues to be permanent employee of parent Company since his lien is not terminated.
10. These contentions of Mr. Bilgrami are not without substance. A permanent employee cannot be thus shunted by the main concern from one sister concern to the other and ultimately turned out.
The loaning of the services of the respondent was without knowledge or consent of the A respondent and it was done by the directors, who were the same for all the companies, for their own convenience, for reasons known to them.
11. I thus find that respondent Saleh Muhammad who was permanent employee of the petitioner, continued to remain in their employment, though he was shown as serving under sister concern.
His services with the petitioner had never been terminated. Therefore even if the sister concern Akmo Trading Company did not wish to keep him any longer he would revert back to the parent Company i.e. The petitioners from the date the Akmo Trading Company sent him back.
12. It is accordingly declared that the order passed in appeal by the Labour Court re-instating the respondent is neither illegal nor without jurisdiction.
13. This constitutional petition is accordingly dismissed.