DECISION ' This appeal of 11 appellants is directed against the order of Sind Labour Court No, VII at Sukkur, passed on 12th May, 1983.
2. The 11 appellants jointly made an application under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969, whereby they challenged the orders of termination of their services by the respondents, namely, Consolidated Spinning and Textile Mills Ltd., Larkana.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants were permanent employees of the respondents, namely, Consolidated Textile and Spinning Mills Ltd., Larkana. They claimed to be workmen and their services were terminated by the respondents, vide orders, dated 24th June, 1982 on the ground of the closure of the Mills. The Mills re-started but the appellants were not reinstated. The appellants were being victimized because they were the office bearers or members of the Labour Union.
4. The respondents in response to the notices of the Labour Court filed the written statement wherein they had denied the relationship of master and servant and had alleged that the Consolidated Spinning and Textile Mills were leased out to Modern Textile Mills Corporation, vide Lease Deed, dated 10th December, 1980 for the period commencing from 16th September, 1980 to 31st December, 1983. The statement of the respondents is that they did not terminate the services of the appellants. They have also raised the legal plea that the appellants did not file in proper form their petitions under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969.
5. I have heard the counsel namely, Khadim Ali for the appellants and Mr. Abdul Hameed Khan for the respondents and perused the impugned order.
6. The Labour Court struck two issues, namely, whether the present appellants were employees of respondents ; and whether their services were terminated illegally. The facts enunciated in evidence brought by the parties are that the Consolidated Textile and Spinning Mills, Larkana, had been leased out to Modern Textile Mills Corporation since 16th September, 1980, vide Lease Deed, dated 10th December, 1980, Exh. 2-A. Therefore, from 16th September, 1980, the Modern Textile Mills Corporation is running the mills. The orders passed for termination of services of the appellants are signed by the Manager of Modern Spinning and Textile Mills.
7. Although most of the appellants denied that the Mills are run by the Modern Textile Mills Corporation, yet there is evidence of Badruddin which shows that the mills was being run by the Modern Textile Mills Corporation from 16th September, 1980. The appellant, Badruddin in cross- examination has admitted that his applications Exh. 3-A, 3-B and 3-C were granted by Modern Textile Mills Corporation. He further admitted that the mills was taken on lease by the Modern Textile Mills Corporation from September, 1980. The other appellants have denied that the mills had leased out. Overall the situation as discussed by the Labour Court is that the mills were run by Modern Textile Mills Corporation. The termination order of Manzoor Ahmad is admitted to have been signed by the Manager, Modern Textile Mills Corporation. The conclusion, therefore, drawn by the Labour Court from the evidence on record is that it was proved that the Consolidated Spinning and Textile Mills Ltd., Larkana have been leased out to Modern Textile Mills Corporation. The appellants, except Badruddin had deliberately suppressed these facts from evidence.
8. The definition of employer is laid down in section 2 (viii) of the I. R.
0., 1969, which provides that an employer in relation to an establishment means any person or body of persons whether incorporated or not, who or which employs workmen in the establishment under a contract of employment and includes (a) and heir, successor or assign as the case may be, of such person or body ; (b) any person responsible for the management, supervision and control of the establishment. Under this definition, it is not necessary that only the owner or proprietor be deemed employer but these reasonable for management or control, may also be deemed as employer. The conclusion, therefore, would be that Modern Textile Mills Corporation were the employers of the appellants and not the respondents herein.
9. There were two categories of appellants. Appellants Nos, 1 to 4 were appointed by the respondents, while appellants Nos, 5 to 11 were appointed by Modern Textile Mills Corporation during lease period. The services of all the appellants have been terminated by the Modern Textile Mills Corporation, the lease holder. The respondents for all purposes cannot be considered as employers of appellants Nos, 5 to 11, as he had neither employed them nor terminated their services.
10. The position of the appellants Nos, 1 to 4 is that they were employed by the present respondents before the mills was leased out. In para. 9 of the Lease Deed, it is clearly mentioned on the top of page 4 of the Lease Deed, that the second party (Modern Textile Mills Corporation) shall have the legitimate rights to remove, discharge, dismiss, retrench or otherwise punish any worker employed in the mills according to the law in force and the first party (Consolidated Spinning and Textile Mills) shall have no right to interfere into the powers of the second party.
11. In view of the above discussion, it is proved that the respondents are not the employer of the appellants excepting appellants Nos, 1 to 4 but according to the Lease Deed, the appellants were employees of the Modern Textile Mills Corporation. The Modern Textile Mills Corporation were not joined as a party in the grievance petitions and as such their grievance petitions failed on the ground that the respondents are not the employer and that they have failed to give notice under section 25-A, I. R.
0., 1969, to their employers, namely, Modern Textile Mills Corporaation. The grievance petitions were, therefore, rightly dismissed by the Labour Court.
12. I find no fault in the impugned order passed by the VlIth Sind Labour Court at Sukkur and the present appeal fails and it is dismissed accordingly.