' GHULAM NAUMAN SHAIKH (MEMBER).--- This is complaint under section 63(1)(d)(i)(ii) of I.R.O., 2002 filed by the complainant against the persons named as accused in the complaint.
2. Facts of the case as stated in the complaint are that the complainant was working as Yard Clerk as seasonal worker in Messrs Faran Sugar Mills Limited and was and is an active member of Mazdoor Union Faran Sugar Mills, CBA. It, is alleged that that the accused are against the trade union activities and to protect their interest have got registered Faran Sugar Mills Workers Union, which was defeated in the referendum by Mazdoor Union Faran Sugar Mills. Accused had a discriminatory treatment with Mazdoor Union Faran Sugar Mills, as such General Secretary of the union Abdul Karim Mangwano was dismissed due to his trade union activities. In the year, 2002- 2003 due to cooperation of Mazdoor Union Faran Sugar Mills the factory obtained profit of crores of rupees. On 10-4-2003 on completion of crushing season of 2002-2003, the complainant along with 306 other seasonal workers were relieved. It is alleged that on 18-4-2003 the accused sent 426 permanent and retainees workers on leave and as an act of victimization on account of their trade union activities, they terminated their services and employed the workers through contract system.
On 30-11-2003 on start of crushing season for the year, 2003-2004, the complainant as seasonal worker went for duty, but private security guards on the instructions of accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 did not allow him and other seasonal workers to enter in the factory and on 10-1-2004 when the complainant went to factory he was informed by the accused Nos. 2 and 4 and security guards that accused No, 3 had instructed them not to allow any worker, who is member of Mazdoor Union Faran Sugar Mills to enter in the factory as all the permanent workers, who were members of Mazdoor Union Faran Sugar Mills were terminated and contract system was introduced. The complainant and other seasonal workers were asked that in case they would again come for their duty at the factory gate, they would be handed-over to the police. It is alleged that accused Nos. 1 to 4 firstly terminated 426 permanent workers and then did not take complainant and other seasonal workers on duty at the start of crushing season of 2003-2004 and established contract system by creating false firm by the name "Pakistan Services" and employed the workers and refused to take the complainant on duty, as such this complaint of unfair labour practice. It is prayed that the accused be punished for the act of unfair labour practice to have been committed by them and the complainant be reinstated in service.
3. At the time of filing of the complaint on 10-3-2004 it was ordered that before recording the statement of complainant it would be in the interest of justice to call the comments from the accused. Accordingly notice was issued to the accused persons named in the complaint for their comments.
4. Comments were filed by the accused, wherein they have challenged the maintainability of the complaint. It is stated there are bald and baseless allegations, as such the complaint was not maintainable. The Registrar of Trade Unions, Hyderabad Region, Hyderabad has filed a complaint before the Sindh Labour Court No,6, Hyderabad for cancellation of registration of Mazdoor Union Faran Sugar Mills. The complainant was employed as temporary/seasonal worker vide his letter of appointment, dated 3-2-2003 and on completion of crushing season 2002-2003, the services of complainant being seasonal/temporary employee stood terminated and he was relieved. He took his full and final settlement/dues and severed all the connections with the accused, as such he was not an aggrieved person or workman, as such the complaint was not maintainable. The complaint was barred by aches. It was denied that the accused were against the trade union activities. It is submitted that Abdul Karim Mangwano was dismissed on the charge of misconduct established against him, which was upheld by the Labour Court No,6, who granted compensation.
Letter of appointment and dues clearance certificate of full and final settlement of the complainant have been filed with the comments as Annexures "R/2" and "R/3" respectively. It is denied that the retrenchment of 426 workers was by way of unfair labour practice. It is submitted that it was On account of reorganization due to commercial compulsions. It is submitted that the retrenchment was challenged by Mazdoor Union Faran Sugar Mills in case bearing No,4A(51)/2003- K, which was dismissed by this Bench of Commission vide order, dated 24-7-2003. Out of 426 retrenched workers, 419 have taken their dues along with ex-gratia and Golden Handshake and severed their connections. Only 7 of them have neither taken their legal dues nor have challenged their termination except one who has filed his complaint for unfair labour practice. It is submitted that to give work on contract is legally permissible under law. It is submitted that there is no mention in the letter of appointment of complainant being seasonal worker that he will be offered fresh appointment in crushing season and no such document has been produced by the complainant, as such in terms of the letter of his employment, on completion of crushing season 2002-2003, he was relieved and he has severed his all relations with the accused. There is no reason for him to come to the factory on 30-11-2003 or 10-1-2004. The complaint, therefore; is liable to be dismissed.
5. I have heard arguments of Rana Mahmood Ali Khan, learned Labour representative for the complainant and Mr. Faisal Mahmood Ghani, learned Advocate for the accused.
6. Rant Mahmood Ali Khan, learned Labour representative for the complainant has contended that the complainant is seasonal worker and not temporary worker. On completion of crushing season 2002-2003, he was relieved on 10-4-2003. He is an active member of Mazdoor Union Faran Sugar Mills, C.B.A. When at the start of crushing season of 20032004, the complainant went for duty on 30- 11-2003, he was not allowed to enter in the factory and then on 10-1-2004 he was informed by the security staff at the gate that accused No,3 had prohibited his entry, as he was active member of Mazdoor Union Faran Sugar Mills, CBA and all the permanent workers and seasonal workers had been terminated and contract system had been introduced in the factory. It is submitted that the accused had refused to take the complainant in employment, hence they have committed acts of unfair labour practice, as such the complaint has been tiled to punish the accused and to pass an order of reinstatement of the complainant.
7. Mr. Faisal Mahmood Ghani, learned Advocate for the accused has contended that the complainant claims to be an active member of Mazdoor Union Faran Sugar Mills, CBA, the registration whereof has been cancelled by the Registrar of Trade Unions, Hyderabad Region, Hyderabad in pursuance to the orders of Sindh Labour Court No,6, Hyderabad passed on the complaint filed by the Registrar of Trade Unions, Hyderabad Region; Hyderabad, the order, dated 28-8-2004 whereof has been placed on record. It is contended that the complainant and other 'seasonal workers were temporarily employed only for the crushing season 2002-2003 as per the terms and conditions of employment in their letter of appointment, which has been filed as Annex.
R/2 with the reply, and on completion of the said crushing season, his services stood automatically terminated and even no separate order of termination was required, terminating the employment of the complainant. The complainant, therefore, has no right to continue in employment. It is contended that the retrenchment of workers was challenged by the Mazdoor Union Faran Sugar Mills in a petition bearing No,4A(51)/2003-K., which was dismissed vide order, dated 24-7-2003 passed by this Bench of Commission. It is submitted that the complainant has taken full and final settlement/dues and such dues clearance certificate in full and final settlement is filed with the reply as Amiex.R/3, therefore, the complainant has severed all the relations with the accused, as such he is not an aggrieved person or a workman. There are general and bald allegations, which do not constitute a case of unfair labour practice, as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
In support of his contentions he has placed his reliance on PLD 1988 Supreme Court 53; 2000 SCM R 879, 2001 SCM R 1935, 2002 PLC 133, 1999 PLC 348, 1993 PLC 303, PLD 1980 SC 323, 2002 PLC 24, judgment of Honourable Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No,12757 of 2004, Appeal No,12(40)/2000, Appeal No,12(154)/92, Appeal No,12(34)96-L of Full Bench of N.I.R.C. And judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Sindh at Karachi in C.P. No,D-761 of 1998.
8. I have considered arguments advanced by Rana Mahmood Ali Khan, learned Labour representative for the complainant and Mr. Faisal Mahmood Ghani, learned Advocate for the accused and have gone through the complaint, reply of the accused and the documents filed by the parties.
9. According to letter of seasonal appointment of the complainant, dated 3-2-2003 he was appointed on seasonal basis as Yard Clerk in Cane Department for crushing season 2002-2003 w.e.f 1-1-2003. The relevant term and condition for disposal of this complaint as mentioned in the letter of appointment on seasonal basis are that the appointment of the complainant was purely on temporary basis and could be terminated without any notice and on completion of the crushing season 2002-2003 the services of complainant should stand automatically terminated. After completion of crushing season 2002-2003, the services of complainant, therefore, were automatically terminated as per above said terms and conditions of letter of seasonal employment, which has been filed as B Annexure "R/2" with the reply. The complainant then was paid full and final settlement and dues clearance certificate of full and final settlement has been filed with the reply statement as Annexure "R/3". The relations of complainant, were, therefore.
Severed with the accused after he received his full and final settlement after completion of season 2002-2003. The nature of work of the complainant was only for the season 2002-2003, and there was no any term in his letter of seasonal appointment that the complainant will be re-employed in succeeding crushing season, and no any other letter future employment for succeeding season has been issued by the accused to the complainant.
10. I am, therefore, in the agreement with the submission of Mr. Faisal Mahmood Ghani, learned Advocate for the accused that the C complainant has not attained the status of permanent workman with reference to case law cited by him.
11. It shall appear that in the entire complaint it is not alleged by the complainant that he was being victimized on account of any of his trade union activities and termination of his employment was an act of unfair labour practice on account of his trade union activities. The complainant has only stated that on 30-11-2003 at the start of crushing season 20032004 when he went for his duty as seasonal worker, he was not allowed to enter in the factory, and then on 10-1-2004 he went to the factory but security staff with reference to accused No,3 told him that since he was an active member of Mazdoor Union Faran Sugar Mills, as such accused had directed not to allow any such worker to enter in the factory. This passing reference cannot constitute any act of unfair labour practice. It is also allegation of the complainant and 426 permanent workmen have been retrenched by the accused and a contract system has been introduced by the accused in the factory to get production and that is an act of unfair labour practice. From the entire complaint it does not appear that ingredient of unfair labour practice as contained in any of the clause of section 63 and specifically section 63(1)(d)(i) & (ii) of the I.R.O., 2002 are made out, as such it shall be futile exercise to record the statement of complainant under section 200, Cr.P.C. And then to proceed further to record statements of the witnesses.
12. Moreover in the complaint no name of the witnesses have been mentioned by the complainant.
Accordingly the complaint stands dismissed.
' Announced in open Court.