DECISION ' These three connected appeals are directed against the order of Fifth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, whereby the grievance petitions under section 25-A of the I.R.O. Were dismissed. These appeals were being adjourned for the last three or four hearings on the Application of the Advocate or Representative of the appellants or respondents and ultimately this Court assigned one full day for hearing of their appeals only and no other case was fixed. Even on this day the representative for the appellants has absented himself on the ground of illness. In the Trial Court also the learned representative had remained absent on the ground that the parties had lost confidence in him. I would therefore proceed with these appeals on merit even though only two of the three appellants are present, namely Asfandyar and Humaiyun.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that appellants Abdus Sattar, Asfandyar and Humaiyun were employed as permanent drivers with respondent Mitsubishi Corporation incorporated in Japan but having their offices at Karachi, Islamabad and Lahore in Pakistan.
3. It is the case of the appellants that in all these three offices in Pakistan the respondent employed about 80 workmen but in Karachi office they employed 52 persons. That on account of trade union activities the appellant's services were terminated for misconduct but actually for mala fide reasons. It is on the other hand the case of the respondents that their office in Karachi has less than 20 employees and they are therefore registered under the Shops and Establishments Ordinance. That on account of re-organisation of the transport system they retrenched the appellants on the basis that they were junior-most. That the Standing Orders. Ordinance and the I.R.O. Has no application in the case of their commercial unit in Karachi.
4. The learned Labour Court after recording of evidence came to the conclusion that the appellants were removed from service due to bona fide re-organisation and retrenchment. That there is no evidence of any mala fides on the part of the employers for alleged union activities and the burden of proof being on the workers they have not discharged that burden.
5. Thirdly on the point of jurisdiction the learned Labour Court found that the respondent being registered under the Shops and Establishments Ordinance employed less than 20 persons and it was for the appellant workers to prove that they employed 52 workmen at their Karachi Office. The learned Labour Court accordingly dismissed the grievance petitions as being not maintainable.
6. I have gone through the evidence of the appellants given in the lower Court. They have not produced any dismissal orders although they have alleged that they were dismissed from service for misconduct due to union activities. They have also not shown that the juniors were retained and they being senior drivers were dismissed, nor have they shown that the number of employees was 20 or more. No mala fides have been proved. Regarding number of employees they have admitted that there are 52 employees in the Corporation but all of them are not workmen. They have not given the exact number of workmen.
7. For proving the respondent Corporation to be a commercial establishment all the units throughout the world or even throughout Pakistan cannot be considered as one establishment but each unit has to be shown to be a separate establishment employing 20 or more persons as held in 1987 PLC 390. In this case Karachi Unit has not been shown to be employing 20 or more persons and this fact has been contradicted by the respondent-Corporation who are registered under the Shops and Establishments Ordinance. Therefore, at the very inception the Standing Orders Ordinance and the I.R.O. Are not applicable to the appellants.
8. The appellants have also not been able to show that they have been dismissed from service due to misconduct. I am inclined to believe that they were retrenched on account of re-organisation.
9. In any case the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the case of the appellants, since they have failed to show that Mitsubishi Corporation employed 20 or more workers at their Office in Karachi.
10. The order of the Labour Court is accordingly maintained and the appeals of the three appellants are dismissed.