DECISION This is an appeal filed by the appellants, namely Messrs Mehran Jute Mills Ltd. Against an impugned order, dated 19-12-1985, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. III, Karachi, who had allowed the grievance petition, under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969 of the respondent, namely Muhammad Fazlul Haque, directing his re-instatement in service with full back benefits.
2. The brief facts of the case of the respondent workman before the learned Labour Court were that he was employed with the appellant mills as a permanent workman since 1978 and was drawing a sum of Rs.678 per month as his wages and that he was also an office-bearer of the rival union of the C.B.A. And on this sole ground, the management was annoyed with him and was inclined to get rid-of him for one reasons of the other. However, on 28-2-1984, when the respondent reported for duty, he was refused duty without any notice, charge-sheet or anything in writing which amounted to the illegal dismissal from service.
That after his dismissal, a number of junior workers to him in the same category were still working with the appellants Mills in the direct supervision and control of the management of the mills. Being aggrieved with this unlawful action of the appellants, the respondent approached the Labour Court
3. The appellants Mills resisted the petition on the grounds, firstly that as the respondent was working as head sardar in the Finishing Department and his job was of supervisory nature, therefore, he was not a workman and not entitled to maintain his grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969 and secondly, as the operation of the Finishing Department was not economical, therefore, it was given on contract to an independent contractor, namely Absar Ahmad, so the appellants establishment had terminated the services of 22 male and 37 female workers of the Finishing Department and for that a termination letter was given to the respondent on 7-2-1984, but he refused to receive the same and that as the termination of the services of the respondent was mainly on account of the stoppage of the Operation of the Finishing Department of the appellants Mills, therefore, the respondent was not entitled to maintain his petition, which was liable to be dismissed.
4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavit-in-evidence and they were duly cross-examined.
Thereafter, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order, hence, this appeal.
5. I have heard Mr. S. Zamirul Hassan, the learned representative for the appellants Mills and Mr. S.P.
Lodhi, the learned representative on behalf of the respondent and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of to case. It is admitted on the record of the case that the appellants Mills has miserably failed to submit any authentic and convincing proof to rebut claim of the respondent that he was a workman within the ambit of the Labour Laws, therefore, the learned Labour Court was quite correct in holding the respondent as a 'workman' and his present grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969 as maintainable. I would also hold this same view on this issue.
6. As regards the second contention of the appellants Mills, it is again an admitted fact on record that the appellants Mills did not bring any document in evidence to show that the Mills was actually running in losses. The mala fide of the so-called termination or dismissal of the services of the respondent workman by the appellants establishment is fully proved from the fact that only in order to remove the respondent and other workers the appellants Mills had resorted to the device of giving the Finishing Department on the contract, more particular in the circumstances that the so-called contractor, namely, Absar Ahmed, was not at all produced by the appellants establishment before the learned Labour Court for evidence, or cross-examination by the respondent. Therefore, the bare words of the appellant establishment, in view of the peculiar circumstances of the present case cannot be relied upon. On the other hand, Mr. S.P. Lodhi, the learned representative for the respondent workman has referred to an unreported decision of this Tribunal, in Appeals Nos. KAR-332 and 333 of 1985, dated 27-8-1986. The facts and circumstances of this decision are somewhat similar to the facts and circumstances of the present case. I, therefore, hold that the view taken by this Tribunal in the above referred decision, is very much applicable also to the present case. Thus, the findings of the learned Labour Court on this point also are correct, hence maintained.
7. For the reasons stated by me above, I see no reasons to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. The present appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The respondent workman is directed to be reinstated in service with full back benefits forthwith. The amount of back benefits already, deposited in this tribunal by the appellants Mills, he paid to the respondent workman, namely Muhammad Fazlul Haque after due verification.
A.E./960/Lb.S revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.