DECISION These are four separate appeals filed by the appellants against a common impugned order, dated 28-4-1988, passed by the Sind Labour Court No.V at Karachi, who had dismissed all the grievance petitions under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969, separately filed by each of the appellants. As in all the present appeals, the impugned order is a common order, therefore, I would also decide these 4 appeals, by this single decision.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the cases were that all the four appellants claimed to have been working in the respondent establishment on different posts at Karachi Port and were engaged in loading and unloading of goods at the Karachi Port and its wharfs and warehouses, but, as they were not being given certain benefits and facilities in accordance with the Labour Laws, therefore, they had formed a trade union which had annoyed the management and were inclined to remove them from their employments. It was also the claim of the appellants that all of a sudden, without any written order and/or showing any reason, in writing, their services were terminated orally on 13- 7-1987, therefore, being aggrieved, they claimed to have served their grievance notices followed by the present grievance petitions. The respondent establishment had resisted all these petitions before the learned Labour Court, mainly on the legal ground that as all classes of employment connected with the loading and unloading of goods at the Karachi Port had to be treated as essential service, therefore, the provisions of Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, were applicable on the employments of the appellants, hence, they were not entitled to maintain their grievance petitions under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969 which were liable to be dismissed.
Thereafter, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order, hence, the present appeals.
3. I have heard Mr. Riaz Hussain Baloch, Advocate, for the appellants and Mr. Muhammad Humayoon, the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent establishment and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the cases as well as the written arguments, submitted by both the parties. It is an admitted position that the appellants were engaged in operating cranes and fork lift at the Karachi Port and as such they were loading and unloading the goods at Karachi Port etc. therefore, in view of the contents of the Gazette Notification, dated 31-1- 1988, issued by the Government of Pakistan, all classes of employment connected with the loading or unloading of goods at the Karachi Port etc., were covered by the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, to be effective with effect from 1-2-1988 till a period of 6 months. In view of this legal position, the impugned order passed by the learned Labour Court on 28-4-1988, i.e. during the operative period of the Essential Services Act was correct and it needs not to be interfered with. I have perused also the written arguments, submitted by Mr. Riaz Hussain Baloch, the learned Advocate for the appellants and find that they are not impressing. I would also see no force in the contentions of Mr. Riaz Hussain Baloch, the learned Advocate that the evidence in the case of appellant, Baitullah was erroneously made applicable on the other three cases of the present appellants by the learned Labour Court, therefore, the learned Labour Court was not correct in dismissing the other 3 grievance petitions. The admitted position is that all the appellants had claimed to have been working in loading and unloading work at the Karachi Port and this common fact was conceded before the learned Labour Court and there was nothing on record to show that any other appellant has objected on the consolidation of their cases by the learned Labour Court. On the other hand, Mr. Muhammad Humayoon, the learned Advocate for the respondent establishment has rightly placed his reliance on the principle laid down in the cases, reported in PLD 1982 SC at page 125, PLC 1983 at page 525, 1984 PLC (D.B.) Karachi High Court at page 325, 1985 PLC at page 957, 1988 PLC at page 25 and 1987 PLC (D.B.) Karachi High Court at page 386.
4. For the reasons discussed by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. I would accordingly dismiss all the present four appeals.