DECISION ' These are five connected appeals from orders of the Sixth Sindh Labour Court, Hyderabad.
2. In Appeal No, 379 of 1994 the services of appellant Muhammad Hanif were terminated by the Utility Stores Corporation, Hyderabad Region, Vehdat Colony, Hyderabad. The appellant was salesman in the Utility Stores Corporation. He used to sell the articles and maintain account, with Habib Bank. He is said to have misappropriated Rs,42,112 on 2-6-1990 by allegation that he was robbed of the amount while it was being taken to the Bank. The learned Labour Court held that it was a clear case of misappropriation and the services of the applicant were rightly terminated.
Against this order Muhammad Hanif the appellant has preferred this appeal.
3. In Appeals Nos. 385 and 386 of 1994 Naeem Ahmed and Muhammad Ishaque Memon the appellants were working as salesman in the Stores at WAPDA Colony, Hyderabad and Market Road, Nawabshah respectively. In these cases also there was an alleged misappropriation of Rs, 43,000 and 55,292 respectively. In these cases the learned Labour Court re-instated the appellants but did not allow any back benefits to them and the appeals are for grant of back benefits.
4. In Appeals Nos. 395 and 396 of 1994 the Utility. Stores Corporation have challenged the re- instatement of both the salesmen Muhammad Ishaque Memon and Naeem Ahmed as ordered by the Labour Court.
5. The main question in all these appeals is with regard to the jurisdiction under section 25-A of the I.R.O. Utility Stores Corporation has number of establishments or Units throughout Pakistan. 'The question arises whether each such unit can be regarded as part of the Commercial Establishment at Islamabad. Commercial Establishment is defined under section 2(b) of the West Pakistan Standing Orders Ordinance. It reads as under:-- "(b) 'Commercial Establishment' means an establishment in which the business of advertising commission or forwarding is conducted, or which is a commercial agency, and includes a clerical department of a factory or of any industrial or commercial undertaking, the office establishment of a person who for the purpose of fulfilling a contract with the owner of any commercial establishment or industrial establishment, employs workmen, a unit of a joint stock company, an insurance company, a banking company or a bank, a broker's office or stock exchange, a club, a hotel, a restaurant or an eating house, a cinema or theatre, and such other establishments or class thereof, as Government may by notification in the official Gazette, declare to be a commercial establishment for the purposes of this Ordinance."
6. The Commercial Establishment would be governed by the Standing Orders Ordinance if they employ 20 or more workmen. A Unit of a Joint Stock Company has been mentioned by way of illustration as Commercial Establishment but not the company itself. Likewise if there is a chain of Hotels like Hotel Marriot or Sheraton having Unit in each big city of the world, the Standing Order would apply in respect of each such Unit separately. The number of workers for the purpose of Standing Orders Ordinance should be 20 or more in each such Unit and then alone the unit would be covered by the Ordinance.
7. In a decision of the Sindh High Court in the case of M/s. Ehsan Sons Limited v. Abdur Razzak and 2 others reported in 1987 PLC 390, it was held by Abdul Qadeer Choudhry and Hyder Ali Pirzada, JJ.
That: "Mere fact that a company individual or association of individuals runs or sets up separate establishments at different places would not authorise treating all such establishments, to be one establishment either for the purposes of Industrial Relations Ordinance or Standing Orders Ordinance, even if there was a provision for transfer of staff from one establishment to another. The petitioner has also invited our attention to the provision of Shops and Establishments Ordinance. He has also drawn our attention to a certificate issued by the competent Authority in this behalf. This clearly shows that Head Office is a separate and distinct entity.
' In view of this we accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and hold that .The Head Office is a separate and distinct entity."
8. That petition was, accordingly dismissed.
9. The question also arises regarding burden of proof that the establishment or the Unit of establishments employed 20 or more persons. Initially the burden would be on the worker who asserts that the establishment consists of 20 or more persons or assumes that the Labour Court has jurisdiction. It is then for the respondent management to rebut thar assertion by leading evidence. In the present case it was merely presumed that a Utility Stores was a commercial establishment, neither party led any evidence to support this issue. Mr. Latif Saghar now argues that these Units hardly employ 2 or 3 persons each as workers. This Tribunal will not, therefore, have any jurisdiction to deal with all the five matters which pertain to separate units of Utility Stores Corporation. The Labour Courts and this Tribunal will, therefore, have no jurisdiction to deal with the petitions under Standing Orders Ordinance and the I.R.O. The decisions of the Labour Court in case of grievance petitions, including orders of re-instatement are set aside, and the appeals are also dismissed, for want of jurisdiction. 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.