DECISION This appeal by M/s. Dawood Cotton Mills arise from the order of Fourth Sind Labour Court, Karachi allowing the grievance petition of worker Rustam Khan for reinstatement and back benefits.
2. The respondent was working. In the Appellant Mills for about three years. He could not attend duty for to days that is on 13-3-1993 and 14-3-1993 due to illness and he informed the management in the. On 15-3-1993 when he reported for duty his services were orally terminated.
3. It is the case of the appellants that they had given the contract for labour in the Doubling Department to one Mr. Inayat and the respondent worker was employed by the contractor and also paid by him. Notice of this appeal has been sent to the contractor several times but this always returned un-served because he is neither in the mill premises nor at his residence. It is doubtful whether such a contractor does exist often. Times fictitious documents are produced showing the management of the factory or mill to have been transferred to a contractor who in fact does not exist. For this reason to verify whether he is running the mill the Tribunal offered to visit the mill premises this very day to see how for he is controlling the manufacture of yarn. The Manager of M/s. Dawood Cotton Mills, however, admits that the contractor is not present at the mill premises because the mills have been closed down.
4. The learned Labour Court also came to the conclusion that appellant Dawood Cotton Mills had taken a false plea that they had employed a I contractor. On the other hand the machinery, raw material etc; were handled by the management and the respondent had worked for three years with this management and there was no reason to terminate the services of the A respondent and that also by an oral order and without an order in writing explicitly giving the reasons as required under Order 12(3), of the Standing Orders Ordinance. The contractor was not registered under section 20 of the Social Security Ordinance. The liability is of the Mill also under section 20 of the Standing Orders Ordinance. The respondent has, therefore, been rightly reinstated by the Labour Court and I can see no reason for interference.
5. The appeal is accordingly dismissed