The instant appeal arises out of an order, dated 3-12-1983. The order of Labour Court No.1, Karachi dismissed the application of Muhammad Shireen son of Baz Gul.
2. This is a case against Globe Textile Mills, Landhi, Karachi, the respondent No. 1 and Abdul Ghani Murata, Contractor, respondent No.2. The appellant's case was that he was a permanent employee of Globe Textile Mills Ltd. Since October, 1979. He performed duties as a Winder. The respondent No. l never issued any appointment letter to its workers. The respondent No.2, namely, Abdul Ghani used to supply labours and workers to the Globe Textile Mills. It is submitted by the appellant that he demanded payment of overtime allowance and the amount of illegally deducted wages. On this respondent No.1 was annoyed and, therefore, he removed the appellant from the employment since 1-1-1981. The appellant sent a grievance notice, dated 6-1-1981 to both the respondents. He did not receive any reply from respondent No.1, hence filed the grievance petition.
3. Respondent No.1 in his reply statement raised the plea that the appellant was not employed by them. Respondent No.2 Abdul Ghani was a contractor of Morata Winding Department of respondent No.1. The said department was run wholly and solely by the contractor who used to engage his own workers for running the department. The Globe Textile Mills, Karachi were only responsible for the maintenance of machines and supply of electricity and other material in that department. Therefore, neither they are responsible for the functioning of the department nor they had employed the present appellant.
4. Respondent No. 2 Abdul Ghani has submitted that he was a contractor of Winding Department of respondent No.1 and that the present contract commenced from 16-6-1980. He never employed more than 16 or 17 workers on any day during the period of his current contract as such the provisions of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, were never applicable to respondent No.2. As such the present grievance application against the respondent No.2 was not maintainable.
5. On merits, it was submitted that the appellant was an employee of respondent No.2 with effect from 4-10-1980, and was not the employee of respondent No.1 since 1-10-1979. This he maintained in the reply statement and the written statement. Suddenly in his affidavit in evidence filed on 19-9- 1981, respondent No.2, Abdul Ghani, retracted from the contents of the reply statement filed by him earlier. In his affidavit in evidence lie took the side of .The appellant and supported his case in toto.
He submitted that he had never been a contractor of respondent No-1 and that all along he had been an employee of respondent No.1 and continued to be, so till the time of the filing of affidavit in evidence.
6. Out of the two versions, stated by the respondent No.2, the one version submitted by him earlier must be taken into account because it conforms with the grievance notice filed by the appellant and the reply statement submitted by the respondent No.2. It is simple matter and this fact may not be elaborated and the reasons may be given. The case of the appellant is based on his grievance notice and the grievance petition. The grievance notice and the grievance petition calls the respondent No.2 merely as a contractor and he states that he was an employee of respondent No.2. The important document is Exh.2-A being reply to the grievance notice of the appellant. He has admitted that the reply statement was signed by him. The perusal of Exh.2-A clearly established that the respondent No.2, Abdul Ghani, even in that reply, has treated himself as a contractor of respondent No.1. In nutshell the deduction could be drawn from the available record that respondent No.2 was the contractor of Globe Textile Mills.
7. In order to prove that respondent No.2 was the employee of respondent No.1, he has produced documents pertaining to the order 1976, 1977, 1978 and 1979. He could not produce any document to show that tie was an employee of the respondent No.1 during the year 1980 and 1981. He has denied his signatures on the resignation allegedly tendered by him on 27-10-1979, Exh.5-A/1. It shows that though he could have been employed in Globe Textile Mills but due to his resignation on 27-10-1979 and thereafter worked as a contractor. The plea of the respondent No.2 that he was the employee of respondent No. 1 is rejected.
8. The question arises whether the appellant was the employee of respondent No. 1. There is nothing on record to presume this fact. There is no order of appointment by respondent No.1. There is no evidence whatsoever to state that he received emoluments from the respondent No. 1.
9. The authorities quoted in the impugned order, 1980 PLC 888 and 1980 PLC 1094 are both distinguishable. The grievance petition of the appellant against the Globe Textile Mills fails.
Therefore, the appeal, on the whole, is hereby dismissed.