DECISION Gul Muhammad an employee of Ameeji Valeeji & Sons, filed an application under section 25-A, I.R.O. 19169, and alleged that he has served the respondents for 22, years. On9-2-1983, his services were terminated unceremoniously without any written order and without assigning any reason.
2. The respondents raised preliminary legal issues that they employed less than 50 workers and as such provisions of the Standing Orders Ordinance were not applicable to their establishment. It was further 2ontended that there was no pritvity of contract between the appellant and the respondents because the appellant was never employed by them.
3. I have heard the arguments of the parties. I refer to the admissions made by the appellant. He admitted in his cross-examination that "I do not have any appointment letter or attendance card.
Messrs Amjee Valeejee never pad me anything in the shape of salary or wages."
This is a very significant admission which proved that the appellant had nothing in his possession, nor a letter of appointment to prove that he was an employee of the respondents Company. He made further admission to the effect that he was recruited by one Rasheed Jamadar and Nooral the contractor. Obviously he was an employee of the contractor who recruited him through Rasheed Jamadar, whenever need arose for loading and unloading cargo of the ships on the Star Board side by barges. It was for the appellant to examine Nooral or Rasheed to prove that they had employed him on behalf of the respondents Company. The appellant also admitted that Nooral as wall as Rasheed were available in Karachi and could be produced in evidence. He frankly refused to examine them. He said that his services were terminated by Rasheed. If so, it is obvious that he was an employee of Rasheed, not of the respondent Company.
4. It, is, therefore, believed that he was employed by Rasheed as a contractor and not by the respondents Company. He has no case under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.