1. Feroze Mazhar Ali Sayed, Member--By this common order we propose to dispose of 21 Appeals having the common facts and question of law filed by the Appellants against M/s. Novartis Pharma (Pakistan) Ltd and HRSG Outsourcing (Pvt.) Limited, respondents, against the impugned order dated 20.03.2015 passed by learned Single Member bench Karachi vide which the name of the Respondent No, 1 was deleted under the provision of Ord-1. R.10, CPC being un-necessary party, appellants being aggrieved hence the above mentioned appeals.
2. The brief of facts leading to the present appeals were laid. Respondent No, 2 had out sourced certain /workers to Respondent No, 1 and both were separate and independent establishments function of Respondent No, 2 was to hire workers and to provide them to different establishments.
3. Further, both the Respondents had independent establishments and separate registered trade unions.
4. The parties proceeded into earlier litigation in case No, 4A(157)/2012-K on the basis of the fact that Respondent No, 1 wanted its name to be deleted on the basis of the contention that it has no nexus with the grievance asserted by the appellants /(Petitioners) because they were employees of the Respondent No, 2 who had a separate entity and separate Bargaining Agents under separate registration, therefore, in the earlier supra proceedings Respondent No, 1. prayed for being deleted as Respondent, and such, prayer was granted on the consent of learned Counsel for the appellant (Petitioner). Against such grant of prayer Petitioners did not prefer any appeal and the order had attained finality, therefore, it could not be challenged now in a subsequent matter.
5. We have heard and considered all the relevant authorities produced before us and have been benefited by the cord.
6. The learned Counsel for the Appellants has argued at length about the nexus between the two Respondents concerned to the grievance of the appellant and tried to convince that the Respondent No, 1 cannot be deleted. Moreover, the learned Counsel for the Appellants contended to the extent while naming Counsel for the appellant alleging that it was the mistake of that Counsel which consented the deletion of Respondent No, 1 in the earlier proceedings and the failure to challenge the same after adjudication. This was highly improper to seek relief because of a Counsel who should not blame another Counsel particularly when his own name was appearing on the same Vakaltanama.
7. Another point of vital significance was that many of the Petitioners were clearly outside the ambit of workman, as such, they cannot bring in proceedings before the NIRC, hence, it was an exercise in futility to challenge the same.
8. These matters are also hit by the limitation clause because one of the Companies came into existence much after the date of employment, as such, the nexus with that Companies, if not washed out, is atleast hit by limitation.
9. The order of learned Single Member of the Commission deleting the name of Novartis Pharma had also attained finality and was not challenged, as such, by a separate proceedings it cannot be called into question and it is only exercise in futility to file these captioned appeals. The position of workman is also clarified by the educational degrees which were held by the employees which clearly indicate that they were or they cannot be workman with those qualifications of higher magnitude.
10. Mr. Faisal Mehmood Ghani has relied upon various authorities which are already mentioned above and has been considered by us.
(i) Very vital authority which we deem necessary to be reproduced was reported in 2000 PLC 52 86 57 in which it has been held: "It is significant to note that the petitioners initially had addressed common grievance notices to the Respondent No, 1 and to said contractor. This unequivocally postulates that they knew it very well that they were employed by the contractor for about two years, without any protest accepted their position as such. After termination first time they raised the plea that they were the employees of Respondent No,
1. Also it is to be noted that in the prayer clause there was no specific prayer that Respondent No, 1 had administrative control over the petitioner nor had any authority to reinstate or dismiss them nor was responsible for their wages nor such contractor was a fictitious person. All the circumstances, individually as well as collectively, lead to one direction that petitioners were the employees of said contractor ex-facie, findings in this matter have been recorded by learned Tribunal on assessm ent of evidence available on record and it could not be disturbed simply because a different view was possible.
11. All other authorities were also beneficial for the Respondents and we do not find it necessary to reproduce them.
12. The crux of our entire foregoing discussion is that wastage of time should be prevented that is simple to say that all the Appeals are dismissed on orders to costs, files be consigned to record room.