1. DECISION These are 2 cross appeals against the Order of the learned Junior Labour Court No. III, dated 15-8-1974 by which the application of respondent Adam for his re-instatement with back benefits was allowed. Respondent Adam in his cross appeal has made a prayer that he should be treated as permanent employee sirfce 1960, and that he is entitled to all the rights and benefits of continuance of service from the said date and that he is also entitled to over-time dues amounting to Rs. 14,664. I have heard the Representatives of the parties. I have also perused the record of the learned Junior Labour Court. The case of appellant-Management is that respondent Adam was not a workman and that they had neither terminated the service of Adam nor refused his attendance on duty but he himself had absconded from duty when the matter of shortage of 722 gallons of petrol was discussed with him; further that the depot where the respondent Adam was employed was a separate establishment where only 3 persons were working as such the Standing Orders are not applicable to it. The first objection that Adam was not a workman must fail, as he was working as a Salesman selling oil and petrol, collecting money and depositing the same. He had no power of hire or fire nor any other power to suggest that he was an employer and not a workman. The main point raised is that he was working at a depot which is separately registered under Shops and Establishments Ordinance and as such Standing Orders are not applicable. The evidence adduced in the lower Labour Court shows that the six appellants had taken agencies of petrol pumps from Pakistan Burmah Shell and they run the business at various places each pump situated far from each other, and they employ 2 or 3 persons on each of the petrol pump stations. It is also an admitted fact that each of them is an independent unit separately registered under Shops and Establishment Ordinance. The establishment as defind in I. R. O. 1969, Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, and Shops and Establishment Ordinance means any Establishment Office, Shop etc., for carrying on any business or industry, trade or profession. The appellants have got many depots under them working at different places separately registered under Shops and Establishment Ordinance. Mere fact that the appellants run all the petrol pumps does not mean that they are run by the Company. The respondents are also separate firms and units as the application of Adam under section 25-A of I. R. O. filed by him in learned Junior Labour Court shows.
2. They are for all/* intents and purposes separate units. An employer may have more than one establishment, or more Industrial Units in Industrial Area, and the expression 'Establishment' would include not whole of the establishment but each of them individually. I, therefore, hold that respondent Adam was employee of the petrol pump which is a separate unit in which only 3 persons were working which is registered under Shops and Establishment Ordinance and therefore the provisions ot Standing Orders were not applicable; under the circumstances the question of his re-instatement in service does not arise. Under Shops and Establishment Ordinance, respondent Adam was only entitled to one month's notice pay for terminating his service. The record of the learned Junior Labour Court further shows that this Adam had produced no evidence or any proof that he had worked over-time at any working day as such the learned Court had acted only on surmises and conjectures. The learned Court was however not justified in awarding the over-time wages too. In view of the above discussions I set aside the Order of the learned Junior Labour Court and allow the appeal of the management. The appeal of Adam however is dismissed. Announced in open Court on 23rd day of October 1974, Karachi.