DECISION These are seven appeals filed by the appellants against a common impugned order, dated 31-10- 1983, passed by the Sind Labour Court No.I, Karachi, who had dismissed the grievance petitions of the appellants under section 25--A, I.R.O., 1969.
2. Briefly the facts are that the appellants served the respondent establishment for two years as their permanent workers. That on 28-9-1984, when the workers formed a trade union in the establishment, the General Secretary of it had submitted an application before the Registrar, Trade Unions on 4-10-? 984 for the registration of the union under the name and style of 'Abdul Haq Silk Factory Mazdoor Union, --Karachi, and such information was also sent to the respondent -- management on the same date, vide registered post, A/D. That, the Registrar of Trade Unions Karachi had issued the registration certificate on 14-1-1985. That it is the case of the appellants that the respondent establishment never allowed the rights and benefits to them, as admissible under the different Labour Laws in spite of their repeated oral requests from time to time, and as soon as they came to know about the formation of a Trade Union in their establishment, they started resorting to unfair labour practice against the office-bearers and members of the union and finally they had locked out the entire factory with effect from 19-11-1984 resulting in the termination of services of the appellants orally and without assigning any reason. That, against this termination of services, the appellants had served the grievance notices, dated 22-1-1985 upon the respondent establishment through registered post, A/D, which were received back undelivered with the remarks of the postal authorities as 'refused', hence they had submitted grievance petitions before the learned Labour Court.
3. On the other hand, the case of tire respondent establishment is that the respondent establishment is 'Banaras Silk Factory' situated on Plot No. A /95, Banaras Colony, Karachi, and that they have no concerned with 'Abdul Haq Silk Factory', alleged to have been situated on the same plot and as such 'Abdul Haq Silk Factory' did not exist. That, as the appellants had left the jobs at their own accord, therefore, now they could not claim re-instatement under the law and that they did not receive information about the formation of the union or that they had refused to accept the letters of the appellants, alleged to have been sent by them, hence, the grievance petitions filed by the appellants were not maintainable.
4. Both the parties filed their affidavits in evidence and were duly cross-examined before the learned Labour Court, who, thereafter had dismissed them, hence, these appeals. As, the facts, circumstances and impugned order in all these seven appeals are common, therefore, I propose to dispose of them by this single decision.
5. I have heard Mr. Ali Ahmad, the learned Advocate on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Riaz Baloch the learned counsel for the respondent establishment and have perused the record and proceedings of the case.
6. There are two main issues to be determined in the present case are firstly, whether the factory situates on Plot No. A/95, Banaras Colony, Karachi, is named as 'Messrs Abdul Haq Silk Factory' or 'Messrs Banaras Silk Factory'; and secondly, whether the appellants are entitled to the relief as claimed by them.
7. As regards to the first issue, it is contended by Mr. Riaz Hussain Baloch for the respondent establishment that no establishment by the name of 'Abdul Haq Silk Factory' existed at Plot No. A/95, Banaras Colony, Manghopir Road, Karachi, but, the fact is that an establishment in the name of 'Banaras Silk Factory' was situated ^t Plot No. A/95, Banaras Colony Manghopir Road, Karachi, and Mr. Abdul Haq is the owner of Banaras Silk Factory and this establishment is duly registered under the West Pakistan Shops and Establishment Ordinance, 1969. Mr. Riaz Hussain Baloch has referred me to this authentic documents which is placed on the record of the learned Labour Court and is also reproduced in the impugned order. On the other hand, Mr. Ali Ahmad, the learned counsel for the appellants has based his arguments on this issue, only on the oral testimony of the appellants as well as a letter, dated 3-12-1984, issued by Assistant Director, Labour Directorate (West Division), Karachi, to the Occupier/ Manager of Messrs Abdul Haq Silk Factory, A/95, S.I.T.E., Banaras Colony, Karachi of a joint meeting and this letter was received by Mr. Abdul Haq in his capacity as owner. Of Banaras Silk Factory, but he has nothing to submit in rebuttal to the documentary proof i.e., the registration certificate under the Shops and Establishment Ordinance, 1969. I, therefore, hold that the learned Labour Court has rightly decided this issue in favour of the respondent establishment.
8. As regards to issue No. 2. Is contended by Mr. Riaz Hussain Baloch, the learned Advocate for the respondent establishment that, as A the appellants did not submit their grievance notice or the grievance petitions against the correct and proper respondents, therefore, their grievance petitions filed under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969, were misconceived and not maintainable. Mr. Ali Ahmad, the learned counsel for the appellants has also no legs to stand on this issue. I, therefore, hold that this issue was also rightly decided by the learned Labour Court in favour of the respondent- establishment.
9. For the reasons stated by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. I, therefore, would maintain it and dismiss these seven appeals accordingly.