1. ORDER The General Secretary, Pak Stanvac Petroleum Project Employees' Union, Dharki, District Sukkur filed an application dated 3-11-1973 against the Pak Stanvac Petroleum Project alleging that the Management had victimized the workers because they were taking keen interest in the affairs of the Union. It was also alleged that the workers who had more than three years' continuous service had be#n dismissed from 27th September 1973. Out of * f / ' Pakistan Labouk Cases 10 workers whose services had been terminated, two were office-bearers of the Union. The Union prayed that orders for re-instatement of these workers may be issued. The respondents in their reply statement mentioned that ESSO Pakistan Employees' Union was the collective bargaining ageist of the workmen employed in various organizations of ESSO Eastern Inc. They also mentioned that this Company bad only 10 workers in their employment at Dhaiki but not the 10 persons mentioned by the applicants. It was also pointed out by the respondents that during the 1971 war, the approach roads in the Gas Field area constructed by the Company through previous contractors were extensively used by the Army which necessitated more frequent maintenance and repairs of these roads and that in order to cope with the emergency work, the job of maintenance and repairs etc. of these roads was contracted out to one Mr. Hafiz Mohammad Ibrahim in consideration of a fixed amount of Rs. 2,750 per month. The contractor engaged workers directly. The 10 workers mentioned in para. 7 of the complaint were the employees of the contractor who also paid their wages and supervised and controlled their work. After the termination of the contract with effect from 26th September 1973 the contractor terminated the services of these workmen also. The respondents, therefore, stated that the workmen were actually employed by the contractor and they were not the employer of the said terminated workers and had n6t committed any ofTence. The only question involved in this case is whether the workers were employed by the contractor Hafiz Mohammad Ibrahim or were the employees of the Company. Mr. Wasim A. Zuberi has emphatically stated that the Company had nothing to do with these workers and they were employees of the contractor. J, accordingly, considered it expedient in the interest of justice to summon Hafiz Mohammad Ibrahim contractor to clarify the point whether or not the workers were his employees. Hafiz Mohammad Ibrahim deposed that ESSO Eastern Inc. had given him a contract for road building and repairs of roads etc. He had accordingly employed them for 13 months as workers. He was paid Rs. 2,700 per month for the repairs and other works. He completed the work within 14 months on 26th September 1973. He testified that all the 10 workers had been employed by him and that the Company had nothing to do with their employment. He further stated that he employed them for 13 months.and used to pay them on monthly basis. He also stated that after the contract Was over, he had to terminate their services. He added that the pay rolls had been supplied to him by the Company and that he used to mark them present in the attendance register. He alsft produced a copy of the contract deed. This contract deed entered into between Hafiz Mohammad Ibrahim and the Company clearly shows that the former had to do certain work on behalf of the Company for which he was-to be paid Rs. 2,750 per month as remuneration. I am not convinced by the applicants' arguments that because the performance of these workers was appreciated by the officers of the Company and they were issued Identity Cards, they were supposed to be the employees of the Company. As far payment of compensation to one of the workers by the Company is concerned, it is provided in the contract that'the Company could claim it from the contractor but if they have not claimed it, it also does not change the status of the persons employed by the contractor. The Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 which regulates terms and conditions of employment for workmen employed in various Industrial and Commercial Establishments was amended in 1973 to provide for clause ('bb) in section 2 relating to construction industry. The work done by the contractor is covered under this definition. Speciaprovision for construction workers has been made in Standing Order 14-A o {BC21B7C4-2D3A-4F1C-A1A2-1D8C6C581DBF} the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 as under:-- **Special provision for construction worfars.--Where any workman is retrenched or discharged by a contractor or any employer enagaged in the construction industry due to completion, cessation or discontinuance of work, he shall be given preference for employment in another similar work undertaken by the contractor or employer within a period of one year from the date of such retrenchment or discharge: Provided that where a workman is remployed within one month of his retrenchment or discharge, he shall be deemed to have been in continuous service of the contractor or employer notwithstanding the interruption paused by his retrenchment or discharge but no wages shall be paid to him for the period of interruption." I am not in a position to issue any'directions contrary to the provisions! made in the law and I direct that these should be followed in case of these lOf workers. Briefly stated, the application stands dismissed.