DECISION ' This appeal is filed by Qaiser Mirza from the order, dated 5th May 1999 of Sindh Labour Court No, 1 Karachi whereby his grievance petition was dismissed. The appellant's case is that he was appointed as Time Keeper/Store Keeper on 16-9-1993 in the A.F.K. Industries, hereinafter referred to as the respondents. He continued to work in that capacity until January, 1995 when he was assigned some additional duties of maintaining accounts and looking after the godowns. In August 1996 when the respondent set up new Sale point at Lahore, the appellant was transferred to work at the said Sale Point as Salesman. However, prior to his transfer to Lahore 50 persons were employed in the Respondent's' Establishment at Karachi. Even in May, 1998 not less than 30 persons were working in different categories in the Respondents' Establishment.
2. While the appellant was working at Lahore he was involved in a theft case relating to theft of respondents' goods from the gadown situating at Shah Alam' Market Lahore. His involvement took place on report of Mr. Khalid Ahmed brother of Muhammad Arif who claimed to be proprietor of Respondents' Establishment at Karachi. Khalid Ahmad was running the business of Establishment at Lahore. In consequence of the F.I.R. Registered by Rang Mahal Police on 14-3-1998, the appellant and his two brothers and one helper Abdul Jebbar were arrested on 15-3-1998. In course of police investigation the said Khalid Ahmed wrote a letter to the Police that the respondents had suffered no loss due to the alleged theft but because of negligence and carelessness of their employees, miscalculation of the figure of the goods was discovered. The appellant was, therefore, released in the wake of the said letter but before his release he was compelled by the S.H.O. Of Police Station Masti to write some matter on blank paper and sign the same. It was thereafter that he and his brothers were set free on 29-3-1998. After his release the appellant reparted for duty at Lahore but he was directed by Khalid Ahmed to contact him at Karachi Office for his posting. Thereafter, he continued to contact the Respondents' Office at Karachi but with no result. Therefore, he sent grievance notice dated 4-6-1998 to the respondents but the same was not responded. Even a Legal Notice sent to them later on was not responded. As a result the appellant was constrained to file the grievance petition in the aforesaid Labour Court at Karachi.
3. In Reply Statement the respondents raised some Legal Objection, namely, first that 50 persons were never employed in the Respondents' Establishment nor that in May, 1998 not less than 30 persons were working in their Establishment. They also disputed the status of appellant to be a workman. Furthermore, it was stated by the respondents that since the appellant was employed at Lahore since September, 1996 the alleged cause of action if at all accrued to him it was at Lahore and, therefore, the Labour Court Karachi had no jurisdiction. It was also their case that the Respondents' Establishment at Karachi was independent of their business Office at Lahore and, therefore, Lahore Establishment was to be impleaded as party to the case but the appellant has failed to so so. They have further stated that the appellant was not transferred from Karachi to Lahore but on his own request he was employed as. Sales Representative at Lahore by way of fresh appointment. As regards the alleged theft, the respondents' version is that in course of Police Investigation the appellant admitted his guilt and gave undertaking to pay compensation to the Management of the loss they had suffered, to the tune of Rs,2,25,000. According to them undertaking was signed by appellant's father Asghar Mirza, his father-in-law Muhammad Sabir and two other witnesses beside the appellant himself. However, after getting free he failed to fulfil his undertaking with regard to compensation. It was denied by the respondents that the appellant ever reported for duty at Lahore or that he was asked to report for duty at Karachi. The Respondents have denied having received grievance or Legal Notice allegedly signed by the appellant, adding further that the appellant deserted his job at Lahore with effect from 16-5-1998 and thereafter he did not turn up. Therefore, the question of termination' of his services or his dismissal from service did not arise.
4. For proving his case appellant filed his own afidavit-in-evidence whereas the respondents submitted the affidayit-in-evidence of Muhammad Arif, the sole proprietor of the respondents'
Establishment at Karachi. I heard the arguments of the learned advocates of the parties and went through the relevant written material available on record.
5. The fate of this case depends upon the decision of the crucial point whether the Labour Court at Karachi had jurisdiction to entertain/decide this case. Admittedly the appellant first joined the respondents' services at Karachi. Though there is no written order of his appointment, yet it is not denied that initially he worked at Karachi as Storekeeper. According to appellant's own version he was transferred to Lahore to work as Salesman at the newly established sale point, in appreciation of his performance at 'Karachi. But the respondents' case is that he was employed as Sales Representative at Lahore on his own request by way of fresh appointment. There being no documentary proof in support of either of the above two versions with regard to appellant's appointment at Lahore, it seems necessary to first determine if 'A.F.K. Industries at Karachi, and sales point at Lahore were parts of one Entity as claimed by the appellant or they operated independently of each other which is the respondents' version. Even on this point unanimity is lacking in the Statement of Muhammad Arif who is claims to be the sole proprietor of Karachi Industry and his brother Khalid Ahmed who runs the Lahore Business. According to the latter the business carried out both at Karachi and Lahore was joint business. This is precisely the case of even the appellant. Assuming that the business at Karachi as well as at Lahore was joint business, this factor alone cannot be accepted as proof of the fact that the Establishments operating at the aforesaid two places constituted one Entity. The burden to prove this point was heavily cast on teh appellant but he has failed to produce satisfactory evidence in this connection. There is no evidence on record to show that Lahore Business Centre including the salesmen working there were controlled by Karachi Establishment. On the contrary it is the appellant's own admission that he as well as two other employees working at Lahore Centre were drawing their salary from Lahore.
It is also difficult to believe that the appellant having worked in higher post of Assistant Manager Accounts at Karachi would accept the post of a Salesman at Lahore under the same proprietor.
6. In view of the above discussion I am inclined to accept the Respondents' version that appellant was appointed as a Sales Representative, as the fresh appointment and that the Establishment at Karachi and Lahore were independent of each other, as in view of the Supreme Court's decision reported as 1992 PLC 424, the Establishment at Karachi being Industrial/Commercial was independent of Establishment at Lahore which was purely commercial. Moreover, it is appellant's own admission that at Lahore Centre beside him only two other persons were working and such strength was obviously for less than 20 persons. Accordingly Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 was not applicable.
7. Apart from the above, the Respondents' learned Advocate invited my attention to the Supreme Court's decision reported as 1992 SCM R 227 wherein it was held: "and 1 feel no hesitation in agreeing with the decision of the Tribunal upon this point, namely, that Salesmen do not fall within the definition of workman."
' This is additional reason for non-application of the aforesaid Ordinance in the present case. It is also clear from the above appraisal of the material on record that if at all any cause of action accrued to the appellant, it accrued to him at Lahore and not at Karachi. Consequently the Labour Court at Karachi had absolutely no jurisdiction to entertain or decide the grievance petition of the appellant. But the evidence on record amply proves that no cause of action ever accrued to the appellant. The undertaking given by the appellant (Annexure-E at page 53 of the Lower. Court's record) to pay compensation for the loss suffered by the Respondents was admittedly executed by the appellant and witnessed by him father and father-in-law, beside two other witnesses.
Therefore, the respondents are correct in saying that in order to avoid the fulfilment of the aforesaid undertaking, the appellant deserted his duties right from the next day of the execution of the undertaking (i,e, 16-5-1998) and further that he neither reported for duty at Lahore nor he was required to report for duty at Karachi. The appellant's statement is that he repeatedly contacted Factory Office Karachi but there was no positive response and, as such he sent grievance notice on 4-6-1998. It is not clear from his statement as to when he made first contact with the Factory Office nor is it clear what was the actual reply of the respondents. In these circumstances it is difficult to believe his statement with regard to grievance notice.
8. For above reasons the appellant has miserably failed to establish his case and, therefore, the learned. Labour Court has, for convincing reasons, dismissed his petition. Consequently while upholding the order of the learned labour Court, this appeal against the said order is dismissed.