' Mr. S.M. Yaqoob has filed counter-affidavit the copy of which was delivered to other side whereafter both the learned advocates submitted their arguments on application for interim stay.
The petitioners have filed the case under section 22-A(8)(g) of IRO, 1969 alleging unfair labour practice on the part of respondents. They have also filed application for interim stay praying that the respondents be restrained from refusing to employ the applicants on or after 15-3-1994 as threatened through notice dated 27-2-1994.
2. Briefly the facts as alleged in the main case are that the respondent are employing two hundred porters at Terminal No, 1 of Karachi Airport and that the applicants are doing such work but in the beginning the CBA Union of workers was reluctant to enroll them as member. However in view of the decision of Appeal No,44-K of 1992 dated 9-8-1993 wherein it was held that the workers of respondents establishment are entitled to the protection of section 8(A) and in view of decision in Civil. Appeal No,369/1992, decided on 21-12-1993, wherein it was held that the respondents are liable for contribution under Social Security for the workers employed by it, the applicants approached the union in the first week of 1994 and were accepted as its members. However it is alleged that respondents do not want the porters to become the members of the CBA Union and therefore with the mala fide intention they affixed the notice dated 27-2-1994, on the notice board to the effect that they have decided to discontinue their service with effect from 15-3-1994 which is said to be unfair labour practice; hence the case.
3. The respondents have filed counter-affidavit stating that the provisions of the Ordinance, 1968 and IRO, 1969 are not applicable upon them as they are part of Pakistan Air Force that such a case is pending before Hon'ble Sindh High Court which has also granted stay order in their favour, that they have already given up/discontinued the work of porter service whereafter Civil Aviation Authority has made arrangement for porter service with M/s. Airport Limousin Porter Service who has already started functioning, that the workers can enter upon the Airport premises through passes issued by Airport Security Force which would not allow such passes after 15-3-1994 even if the stay is granted as neither the CAA. Nor A.S.F. Are the parties in the present case. They have denied that the notice impugned is mala fide and that on account of the contribution, which are required to be made under the Social Security and ECBI it has become not possible for the respondents to continue with the contract.
4. The admitted position from the arguments of both the learned advocates is that the Airport are run under the supervision of Civil Aviation Authority (CAA.) and that there was a contract between the C.A.A. And the respondents to provide porter service and that the porters employed by the respondents can only work at the Airport when they are issued passes by the Airport Security Force.
From the arguments it also appears that the respondents have terminated the contract through their letter dated 12-1-1994, Annexure 5 which has been accepted through letters R/6 and R/7, all annexed with the counter-affidavit and that at present they are coordinating at the request of CAA.
To enable the new contractor to effectively work. It has also been brought through Annexure R/3 with the counter-affidavit that another contractor has in fact started the porter service as it is dated 10-3-1994. With above position, it is the case of the applicants that the respondents have discontinued the contract with mala fide reason as they do not want the applicants to the members of the union and which is unfair labour practice, whereas the case of the respondents is that the conditions having become uneconomical it is not possible for them to continue with the contract and therefore its discontinuation is neither mala fide nor unfair labour practice. It would further show that act on the part of respondents amounts to closure for which they have not obtained any permission under Standing Order 11-A of the Ordinance of 1968. However it is the case of the respondents that they have large number of the workers in connection with the services being rendered by them at the Airport and that the number of the applicants does not come to 50% for the purpose of obtaining permission under Standing Order 11-A ibid and in this regard the applicants side have no proof in the alternate. It is also seen that according to para. 2 of the main petition it is said that the applicants are appointed on various dates as per requirements which means that they are either temporary workers or they are casual workers because it has also come in the arguments that they are not paid regular wages or salary by the respondents but received porter charges from the concerned passengers who hire them and out of which they are paid either rupees two or three. If this is so then such a worker can be terminated from service at any time. Accordingly in view of the fact and circumstances discussed above it is held that applicants have failed to make out prima facie case of unfair labour practice and therefore this application for interim stay is hereby rejected.
' Put off to 24-3-1994 for comments of respondents.