DECISION These are eight appeals filed by the appellants against an impugned order, dated 30-4-1986, passed by the Sind Labour Court No.I, Karachi, who had dismissed the grievance petitions of the appellants. As the facts and circumstances o--- the impugned order in these appeals are common and similar, therefore, I would dispose of all these eight appeals by this single decision.
2. Briefly stated the case of the appellants was that they were worker of the respondent establishment and allegedly they had formed a Kurmai Company Workers' Union on 22-6-1985, and the information of which alongwith the names of the office-bearers was communicated to the establishment. That, it was alleged by the appellants that on receipt of this information the respondent establishment became furious and pressed the President of the said Union to desist from the union activities or to face time consequences. That on 4-7-1985, when they alleged to have reported for duty then, they were informed through one Muhammad Ismail that the management had decided to close down the whole establishment with immediate effect and it was alleged that they were informed that the establishment would not be re-opened until and unless trade union activities would not be given up by the appellants. The appellants claimed that as their services were terminated without issuance of written termination orders, therefore, a joint meeting was held in the Labour Directorate, but without any result. However, the appellants sent respective grievance notices which were received undelivered and thereafter submitted grievance petitions before the Labour Court
3. The respondent establishment resisted the petitions on the ground that the appellants were never employed by them as the whole weaving unit was given to contractor, namely, Muhammad Ismail, who was responsible for all their service matters and payments and as there was no relation of master and servant between the appellants and the respondents establishment, therefore, they had nothing to do with the question of termination of their services. The respondent establishment further submitted that in view of the existence of valid contract with Muhammad Ismail, the contractor, he was responsible to carry out the contractual obligations under the specified terms and conditions of the said contract. Further, submission of the respondent establishment, were that the appellants had not impleaded the Contractor as a proper party, they had not served mandatory grievance notices upon him, but instead the appellants had chosen to sue a wrong party, i. e. The respondent establishment, therefore, their grievance petitions under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969, were not legally maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
4. The appellants filed affidavits-in-evidence and as by consent of the parties, the cases were consolidated, therefore, only appellant, namely, Nizamuddin, was cross-examined by the respondent establishment. Affidavits-in-evidence of Muhammad Ismail, the Contractor and Wiqar Ahmad, the witness, were filed on behalf of the respondent establishments and both of them were cross-examined by the appellants. The learned Labour Court thereafter dismissed all the eight petitions of the appellants, hence these eight appeals.
5. I have heard Mr. Ali Ahmad, the learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Khurshid Ahmad Siddiqi, the learned representative on behalf of the respondent establishment and have also perused the record and proceedings of the cases. It is an admitted position on record that the appellants had failed to produce any type of documentary evidence in support of their claim that, in any manner, they were the employees of the respondent establishment. There is an admission by the appellant that one Ismail and Moosa used to run the factory and they used to make all payments etc. Admittedly, the appellant was not in possession of any paper pertaining to the alleged formation of the union and that the said union was not registered by the Registrar, Trade Union, Government of Sind, Karachi. On the other hand, there is a direct and specific evidence of Muhammad Ismail the contractor that he used to employ the workman to carry out the jobs in view of the contract, so he was responsible to carry out the contractual obligations. This witness had clearly stated that the appellants were never employed by the respondent establishment for the supervision and that as due to the failure of electricity from 13-6-1985, the whole factory had to be stopped, therefore, all workers had collected their dues in full and final settlement witness Wiqar Ahmad had fully supported the Contractor, Muhammad Ismail. Both these witnesses were cross- examined at length by the appellants but, the appellants could not succeed to shake their evidence. From the record, it is clearly establishment that there existed a valid contract between Muhammad Ismail and the respondent establishment and the same was registered with the Labour Department. The burden to prove the relationship of 'master and servant' between the appellants and th4e respondents establishment was entirely upon the appellant. In view" of this factual and legal admitted position, I hold that the learned Labour Court has rightly dismissed the petitions of these eight appellants.
6. For the above reasons, I see no reason to interfere the impugned order and would maintain the same. These eight appeals are dismissed accordingly.
M.Y.H. /936/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.