DECISION This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 6-2-1984, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. III, Karachi, who had dismissed the grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969, filed by the appellant against Messrs Siemens Pakistan Engineering Company Limited, Karachi
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant claimed that he was appointed by respondent establishment as a Fitter in the Punching Department in August, 1978 and his services were terminated, without assigning any reason with effect from 3-3-1983. After service of the grievance notice upon the respondent establishment, the appellant filed a grievance petition before the Labour Court
3. The respondent establishment resisted the petition by submitting that the appellant was not its employee, but, actually he was an employee of a Contractor, namely, Messrs Rose & Rite Associates and that there was no relation of 'Master & Servant', in any manner; in between the appellant and the respondent establishment. It was further submitted that the said Contractor had itself terminated the services of the appellant and that the appellant, instead of making this Contractor a proper and lawful party, had purposefully filed his grievance petition against an un- concerned employer, i.e. The present respondent establishment, just to black-mail and harass it, therefore, his grievance petition, being improper and incompetent was not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
4. Both the parties filed their affidavits-in-evidence and were duly cross-examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court had dismissed the petition holding the appellant as not an employee of the respondent establishment, hence, this appeal.
5. I have heard Mr. Latif Saghar, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani, the learned Representative on behalf -of the respondent establishment and have also very carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. There is an admitted position by the appellant and his witness, namely, Tamat Wasim Raza that, not only the appellant was appointed by the Contractor/ Proprietor, Messrs Rose & Rite Associates and was working with them till the date of termination of services; but, the appellant was getting his monthly wages from them, right from 1978 to 1983. There is also an admitted position on record that all the employees of the respondent establishment were being issued regular appointment letters, confirmation letters, identity cards, attendance cards, holiday books, G.P. Fund Slips, Medical facilities etc. The appellant had failed to produce any' such documentary evidence on record to prove or to justify his employment with the respondent establishment. If, it may be presumed that the appellant was an employee of the respondent establishment, then, he would have been issued all such documents and he should have submitted any one of such document before the learned Labour Court . There is no such document on record of the learned Labour Court which could prove that it was issued to the appellant by the respondent establishment. What the appellant was able to submit before the learned Labour Court , it was an application in the name of the respondent establishment bearing the recommendations of the Contractor that a Gate-pass be issued in favour of the appellant so that he could enter into the premises of the respondent establishment and to work there for the Contractor. The appellant and his witness had themselves admitted that no such Gate-pass was issued to an employee of the respondent establishment, namely, Messrs Siemens Pakistan Engineering Company Limited, Karachi. This document cannot be said a cogent and authentic proof, to establish that the appellant was an employee of the respondent establishment, thus, it is rejected. Further, it was pleaded by Mr. Latif Saghar, the learned Advocate for the appellant that as the appellant was an employee of the respondent establishment, therefore, he was being given free medical treatment /facilities by the respondent establishment and in support of his claim, he examined the Doctor of the company. This witness too, had deposed against the appellant that "the contractor's workers were also given free treatment in the dispensary of the company on humanitarian grounds". This statement of the Doctor also belies the claim of the appellant. The witness of the appellant, namely, Tamat Wasim Raza, in his cross examination, had categorically and specifically admitted that being an employee of the respondent establishment he was enjoying the facilities of benefits of casual leave, sick leave, bonus, provident fund, group insurance, attendance allowance, conveyance allowance etc; but, the appellant was not enjoying these facilities because he was an employee of the Contractor. I, therefore, hold that as the appellant had miserably failed to prove that he was an employee of the respondent establishment, therefore, the learned Labour Court has rightly rejected /dismissed his grievance petition against the respondent establishment.
6. For the above reasons, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.
M.Y.H./909/Lb.