The appeals captioned above emerge from the decision dated 10.10.1990 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer Punjab Labour Court No.5. Sargodha, whereby the grievance petitions brought by the appellants were dismissed on the sole ground that Standing Order Ordinance, 1968 was not applicable to the respective number of employee was not proved to be twenty or more. It has been admitted by both the learned counsel for the parties that no decision on the merits of the ease has been passed by the learned lower Court.
'
2. The witnesses examined by the appellant, except PW-12, testified that the number of workers was twenty or more. PW-12 is the Manager of Rex Cinema. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that since PW-12 is the employee of the respondents, therefore, he has not 'supported the case of" the appellants. The number of workers is given as eleven in the list sent to the Social Security. Three of the witnesses examined by the appellants in support of their cases are the employees of the respondents and they are those persons whose names are not given in the list sent to the Social Security. There is no evidence in rebuttal to show that these persons were not in employment within 12 months before the termination of the services of the appellants. According to their evidence, the number of workers in 1983 was 22. If the names of these persons are included, the number of workers increases to 14. Since they are the employees of the respondents, they could not afford to give false evidence against them. Their statements that the number of workers was 22, therefore, cannot be ignored. It has not been shown that they are interested in the case of the appellants or that there was motive for them to state falsely against the respondents. Besides their evidence, in rule No.25 (2) mentioned in Ex.P-13, which is a report submitted under rule 82(1) of Punjab Cinematograph Rules, 1976, it is provided that the auditorium should be equipped with air- ebndition plant. In answer to the said question it is mentioned that the air-condition plant 1x 53.7 is installed with 55 kilo watts. If an air-condition plant is installed, it is necessary to employees mechanics for the purpose. The plant being very big, as is apparent from its description, one mechanic would not be sufficient, therefore, more than one mechanic may have been employed.
Three mechanics may have been employed. The case of the appellants, therefore, is supported by the said document that the respondents had mechanics in both the cinemas. In the list, wherein the number of workers is given as 11, no mechanic is mentioned. Against rule 44 of Ex.P-13, the name of Muhammad Sarwar is given. Against rule No.44 it is mentioned, "Is the electrical installation in the charge of a properly qualified electrician approved by the Electric Inspector?" Since the name of Muhammad Sarwar is given, it shows that in answer to question mentioned against rule 44 in Ex.P- 13, it was replied that Muhammad Sarwar was a properly qualified electrician approved by the Electric Inspector. The name of Muhammad Sarwar was not included by the respondents, in Ex.P-13 against rule No.53(4) the name of Abdul Sattar is given. The said paragraph reads as "During a cinematograph exhibition are all fire extinguishing appliances in the charge of a qualified person possessing a certificate of training from the Local Authority's Fire Brigade?" Since the name of Abdul Sattar is given against the above mentioned rule, it means that Abdul Sattar is the employee and he is a qualified person possessing a certificate of training from the Local Authority Fire Brigade for extinguishing fire, if necessity arises. Rule No. 68(1) of Ex. P-13 read as, "Is the re-winding room quite separate and constructed throughout of fire resisting material?" Against this rule the word 'yes' is given, which means that the re-winding room is quite separate and is equipped with fire resisting material. If there is a re-winding room, it would mean that for re-winding the film reels separate persons have been employed. But in the list of employees no person holding the post of re-winder is mentioned. If the names of Muhammad Sarwar, Abdul Sattar are added and posts of mechanics mentioned in rule No.25(2) of Ex.P-13 and the person holding the post of re-winder are added; the number further rises from 14 to 18. With regard to Rex cinema, the document is Ex.PW-15/1 and against rule 44 the name of Akhtar Ali is given, who was employed as electrician. Against rule 53(4) the name of Abdul Aziz is given. Ex.P- 14/17 is a statement and in its column No.3 it is stated that there is a-winder and in column No.6 the post of mali is given. So far as winder is concerned, while discussing Ex.P-13, the post of winder has been included. Since the post of mall is also provided in the statement, therefore, a mali also works but his name too is not included by the respondents in the list. Tha number thus increases to 21. Ex.P- 13 coupled with the list of workers sent to the Social Security not only shows that the total number of workers was 21 at least, but also shows that false record has been maintained by the respondents. PW-12, who has supported the case of the respondents, has stated that he had prepared the list of workers Exs. P-3 to P-8. Exs. P-3, P-5 and P- 7 contain the names of workers of Neelam Cinema. The total number is 17 but in the bottom one Mushtaq and one painter were added raising the number to 19. Ex. P-3 pertains to the month of July, 1983 as deposed by Latif (PW-11) and author of the document namely Abdul Aziz (PW-12).
Although according to Ex.P-3 the number of workers is 19, but the name of Nazir, appellant, is not mentioned therein. There is no denial of the fact that Nazir, appellant, is also employed in Neelam Cinema. Adding his, name to Ex.P-3 the total number comes to 20. Ex.P-5 pertaining to Neelam Cinema is for the month of March, 1983. The total number of workers is mentioned as 17 but in the bottom three others are mentioned. They are Mushtaq, one painter and one driver. The total number, therefore, comes to 20. Ex. P 1-7 pertains to the month of August, 1983. Total number given is 18 but in the bottom other four workers are added namely, Mushtaq, Sajid, Noor and a Chowkidar.
The total number, therefore, comes to 21. Ex.P-4, P-6 and P-8 pertain to Rex cinema. In Ex.P-4 the total number of workers is given as 17 but three others are added in the bottom and they are Ilyas, one driver and one painter and thus the total number rises to 20. Likewise in Ex.P-6 the total number of workers is given as 17 but in the bottom four other workers are added. They are Asas Muhammad, Zahoor, Ayub and a painter. The number thus as become 21. In Ex.P-8 the number of workers is given as 15. In the bottom three others are mentioned namely, Noor Khan, Asas Muhammad and a Chowkidar raising the number to 18. The workers whose names are given in the bottom of Ex.P-3 to P-8 probably for the reason that they were not permanent employees, but it is not necessary for the purposes of section 1(4) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 that the workers should be permanent, because according to the said section, the number should be 20 or more in any month of the preceding 12 months. In Exs. P-3 to. P-8 the designations of the persons mentioned therein are not given but from Exs. P-1 and P-2 it is clear that they are workers. Their designations are given in the said documents. In the above-mentioned documents Tanga driver and drum beater are not mentioned. For advertisement Tanga of the Tanga driver and drum beater are used. The advertisement is very necessary for the exhibition of films. If their names are included, the number further rises. Even if Tanga driver and drum beater are not included, the number of employees, as discussed above, exceeds 19 and thus by virtue of section 1(4) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, the said Ordinance applies.
3. The other point is that the two cinemas are not two separate establishments but is one. In the beginning it was one belonging to Sheikh Enterprises. On 19.4.1979 they were allowed to be bifurcated by the order of the Honourable High Court, which is Exs.RW-1/1. But inspite of it the description of the owner as Sheikh Enterprises remained intact. Ex.P-12 is the settlement between the management of Rex and Neelam cinemas. After the words "Neelam and Rex Cinemas the words "(Sheikh Enterprises)1' are mentioned. The said settlement is dated 18.7.1983 before the appellants were terminated from service. Ex.P-64, which was supplied by the office of the Assistant Director Labour welfare is the other copy of the settlement. PW-14 had produced Exs. P-64 to P-66 copies. Ex.P-75 is the reply to the grievance notice from Chairman, Sheikh Enterprises Limited. It is dated 25.10.1987. It also shows that inspite of the bifurcation allowed by the Honourable High Court, the establishment remained one. This is amusing to note that one person is mentioned as owner of Neelam cinema and the other as owner of Rex cinema, but their wives are shown shareholders in the other cinemas. There appears to be no reason why husband and wife both did not become owner of the same cinema. It is thus apparent that since as a matter of fact the establishment was one and in order to show that the number of workers in each establishment was less than 20, their owners were shown differently and in order to save guard their rights, the owners showed their wives as co-sharer in the cinema in which their husbands were not shown as owner. So from whatever angle the case be considered, the number of workers was 20 and more and both the cinemas is one establishment. The learned lower Court did not advert to the documentary evidence mentioned above and derived wrong conclusion. Since Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 applies, the grievance petitions were wrongly dismissed.
4. As a result of the observations made above, the appeals are accepted and holding that the grievance petitions are maintainable, inasmuch as Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 applies, the cases are remanded for decision of the remaining points in controversy between the parties. 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.