DECISION ' These three connected appeals are against the decisions of learned Fifth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, dismissing applications of the appellants filed under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1%9, praying for their re-instatement in service.
2. The facts of these cases, which are more or less similar, are to the effect that the applicants, who are army pensioners, were employed by the respondent-company as Security Guards and they were posted at different places for work as such. It is the case of the appellants that they were given the leaflets containing terms and conditions of service and they were to get payment from the respondent-company irrespective of the nature or place of posting. They were given uniforms by the respondent-company. They were also supplied Kalashnikov weapons for defence. They had to approach the respondent whenever they required casual leave and they were entirely doing their work according to the wishes of the respondents. They were permanent workmen as they have continued in service for two or three years. Their services were terminated orally without any written order stating reasons for the termination. They have also not been paid their legal dues.
They have remained unemployed after their termination of service.
3. On the other hand the case of the respondent-company is that they have been acting as mere Commission Agents. They procure the services of the Security Guards and they provide these guards to various concerns who ask for them. That they are temporarily employed and after deducting commission they are paid their wages on daily work basis.
4: The common issues raised by the parties Advocates in these appeals are firstly whether the respondent M/s. Shahzada Security (Pvt.) Limited are a commercial establishment covered by Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. It has next been contended that the appellants being temporary employees are not permanent workmen as defined in the Standing Orders and the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain their petitions under section 25-A of the I.R.O. Lastly it has been contended that the respondents were merely commission agents procuring the services of the security guards while they actually work with several parties and they performed their duties with such parties who were therefore necessarily to be joined as co-respondent in the grievance proceedings.
5. The learned Labour Court held that the appellants were not permanent employees, their services were terminated according to their terms and conditions of service, that the respondents were not employers within the meaning of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 as their company is not included in the commercial establishment defined under the Standing Orders and that the petition is also not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties.
6. It is an admitted fact that the respondent-company is doing business on permanent basis, they are engaging services of security guards from amongst retired army personnel and they provide these guards to several parties, that they are the employers who grant leave or who transfer them from one place to the other according to thcir own wishes and who make payment to them irrespective of the amount charged by them from the party with whom they post the guards for duty. It is alleged that although they recovered something like four or five thousand rupees per head from the persons like Banks, Marriage Halls etc. Per month, they pay the guards hardly Rs,1,800 or Rs,2,000 per month. The respondents are, therefore, employing these guards, intending their services to remain permanent and they' do fall within the definition of permanent workmen, although they are not given written orders of appointment, but only leaflets or tickets containing their terms and conditions of service. Since the respondents are doing the business of commercial agency their case falls under Standing Order 2(c)(iii). They employ more than twenty persons and they are admittedly commercial agency.
7. These security guards are posted by the respondent-company according to their own discretion and for the period they like and they transfer them from one place to the other or grant them leave under the terms and conditions of their service. The party with whom they are employed cannot be considered as their employers because they are not paid wages by them nor granted any leave by them nor can their services be terminated by them. They are not, therefore, necessary parties to these proceedings. Under Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 the service of any workman shall not be terminated except by an order in writing which shall explicitly state the reasons for the action taken. In the present case the services of the workmen were orally terminated in contravention of Standing Order 12(3) and these workmen had been in the service of the respondent-company continuously for a period of two or three years. The workmen were found to be demanding extra over-time pay and allowances and, therefore, the company got rid of them by orally dismissing them from service. I, therefore, find their grievance applications under section 25-A to be maintainable. These applications are allowed and they arc hereby directed to be reinstated in service with all the back benefits, since they have not been gainfully employed meanwhile.
8. The appeals are disposed of accordingly and the decisions of Labour Court are set aside.