DECISION These are two separate appeals filed by A.A. Fernandes, the appellant against two separate impugned orders, both dated 24-10-1982, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. V, Karachi. Appeal No.KAR-603/82 is against the impugned order dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant for re-instatement with full back benefits. While, Appeal No. KAR-604/82 is against the impugned order dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant for payment of bonus. As, both the parties as well as their legal and factual pleadings are common in these two appeals, therefore, I propose to dispose both of them by this single decision.
2. In Appeal No.KAR-603/82, the facts are that the appellant was a workman in the respondent- Establishment and was working as Accounts Assistant. That, as the respondent-Establishment was a commercial establishment and the provisions of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 were applicable to it, therefore, the appellant asked the respondents to provide him the copy of the terms and conditions of service applicable to the establishment. That on account of this demand, the appellant incurred displeasure of the respondents, so he was threatened only on this act. That the appellant was removed from service from 11-4-1978, but, junior persons to him were still working on the post of Accounts Assistant and they were performing the same duties, and that the appellant has got right guaranteed and secured to remain in the employment as the termination of service was illegal and mala fide. That, therefore, the appellant sent grievance notice on 24-5- 1978.
3. The case of the respondent-Establishment was that having employed less than 20 persons, the provisions of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, were not applicable to them. That, the respondent-Establishment was registered under the Shops and Establishment Act, 1969. And was governed under the provisions of the said Act, therefore, the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25-A, I . R.O., 1969. Was neither maintainable in Law nor the Labour Court had jurisdiction to entertain such application. That, as there were' less than 20 employees in the respondent-Establishment, therefore, the allegations made against them were false and baseless. That the respondent-Establishment has not violated any provision of Law as the terms and conditions of service applicable to the appellant were very well known to him. That, on account of re-organization of work, business exigencies and the stock nature of trade of the respondent-Establishment, the post held by the appellant became surplus, as the accounts work being done by him was given to the Manager of the establishment. That, further it was vehemently denied that the appellant was given threats by the respondent- Establishment and that on account of displeasure of the Manager or the proprietor, the services of the appellant were terminated, but, in fact the post of the appellant became surplus and it was abolished. That, lastly, it was the case of the respondent-Establishment before the learned Labour Court that normally 13 to 14 persons used to work in the Establishment, so the grievance petition of the appellant be dismissed.
4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits-in-evidence and were duly cross-examined. The learned Labour Court has dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant, hence, this appeal.
5. I have heard Mr. A. Majeed, the learned representative for the appellant and Mr. S.M. Saeed, the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent-Establishment, and have carefully gone through the record and proceedings of the case. Mr. S.M. Saeed contended that neither the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 nor the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, were applicable to the respondent-- Establishment as they employed less than 20 persons and in support of his contention he has referred Annexure 'R/1' of the R&P, which is Form 'C', a Registration Certificate, dated 18-7-1970, of the respondent-Establishments under the West Pakistan Shops and Establishments Act, 1969. He further referred to me Form-2, issued under the Shops and Establishment Rules, photostat copies of the Register of employment for the months commencing from April 1978, Annexure R/2, showing 12 persons employed in the respondent-- Establishment and also the original Register of the employment commencing from the month of Novembers 1977 to January, 1980, showing therein that all times, the number of employees employed in the respondent Establishment was below 15. From all these documentary evidence and oral testimony of the respondent-Establishment, available on the record of the learned Labour Court, it is clearly established that the number of employees working in the respondent-Establishment was below 15 and that the respondent-Establishment was registered under the Shops and Establishments Ordinance, 1969, hence, the provisions of either Standing Orders Ordinance, 1969, or the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, were not applicable in the present case, therefore, the grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.0., 1969, filed by the appellant before the learned Labour Court was neither maintainable nor entertainable in Law.
6. Mr. Abdul Majeed, the learned representative for the appellant has based his arguments mainly on the oral evidence as well as a piece of plain paper and unsigned showing the names of the persons allegedly employed in the respondent-Establishment. However, in view of the authentic documentary evidence produced by the respondent Establishment, I see no force in the contentions of Mr. Abdul Majeed and held that the appellant has no case. Further, in view of the evidence brought on record and considering the connected circumstances, I hold that the services of the appellant were correctly dispensed with by the respondent Establishment on the ground of his being, surplus due to the re-organization of the establishment and the exigencies of the financial difficulties, therefore, the question of any threatening or mala fide against the appellant, also does not arise.
7. Now, I will take up Appeal No. KAR-604 of 1982. The facts of this case are that it is claimed on behalf of the appellant that he was entitled to receive pay of four months as bonus for the year 1978 ending March, 1978, as custom and usage in force, but the respondent-- Establishment failed to communicate his decision.
8. The respondent-Establishment resisted the claim of the appellant on the ground that it had employed less than 20 persons for the present and during the preceding 12 months and also having been registered under Shops and Establishment Ordinance, 1969, therefore, it was not governed either by the provisions of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 or the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, hence, his petition under section 25-A, I. R. O., 1969 was not maintainable as no right guaranteed or secured to him under any Law, Award or Settlement. That the f respondent-Establishment further contended that the bonus is not a statutory requirement in case of the respondent-Establishment. The learned Labour Court has also dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant in this matter holding that the respondent-Establishment is registered under the West Pakistan Sops and Establishment Ordinance. 1969, therefore, the provisions of either West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, or the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, were not applicable to the respondent-Establishment. I also fully agree with the learned Labour Court as far as this appeal is concerned.
9. The upshot of the above discussion is that I see no reasons to interfere with the findings of the learned Labour Court and would maintain both the impugned orders. These two appeals are accordingly dismissed.