' S. ALI ASLAM JAFRI, J.---This is a petition tiled under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, by petitioner M/s. Green Onyx Company calling in question the two orders dated 24-10-1997 and 16-9-1997 passed by respondents Nos.2 and 3 viz. The Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and Presiding Officer Labour Court No,III Karachi respectively in favour of respondent Faqir Gul.
2. The facts in brief are that respondent No,1 filed a grievance petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 read with Standing Order 12(3) before the Sindh Labour Court No,II1 at Karachi. The case of respondent Faqir Gul is that he was employed permanently approximately for about 10 years as a helper with the petitioner. The grievance was that like other labourers he was deprived of his legal rights like non-payment of bonus for last 5 years, costs of living allowance and ad-hoc relief as granted by the Government on 30-8-1993. It was further pleaded that he was not being allowed to join his duty w,e,f, 5th January, 1994 as such he filed a complaint before the Director Labour where one Sher Khan representative of the petitioner-factory appeared and admitted that services of Faqir Gul were terminated without any written order and the management was not taking him back on duty. He further stated that he was offered an amount of Rs,20,000 as his legal dues without being allowed to join his duty and without being reinstated.
3. After service of the notice, written reply/statement was filed on behalf of the petitioner-factory stating therein that respondent Faqir Gul neither was a permanent worker nor he served the management for about 10 years. It was also stated that respondent Faqir Gul was a helper working on temporary job and was paid according to law and as per rules. It was further stated that the respondent Faqir Gul alongwith other labourers had'compelled other workers not to perform their duty on 2-1-1994 from 3-00 p.m. Till 4-1-1994 which caused heavy losses to the factory. All the agitators were reprimanded and allowed to perform their duties except respondent Faqir Gul who himself avoided to attend his duty and preferred to involve in litigation. It was denied that his service was dispensed with or terminated as such it was pleaded that his case was premature and the grievance application was not maintainable. It was also stated that respondent Faqir Gul demanded Rs,20,000 before the Director Labour but the petitioner refused to be blackmailed as there were no dues against the factory. It was also stated that respondent Faqir Gui is a shopkeeper and running a grocery store in Frontier Colony-2 at National Chowk and never came to attend his duty even when required.
4. Respondent Faqir Gul filed his affidavit-in-evidence and closed his side on 24-1-1995.
Muhammad Munir was examined on behalf of factory. Muhammad Uris Soomro, Assistant Director Labour was also examined as a Court witness on the application of Advocate for Faqir Gul.
5. The learned Labour Court framed two points for determination as to (1) whether there is relationship of workman and employer between the parties and (2) whether services of the applicant were not dismissed. Both the points were decided in favour of the respondent Faqir Gul and by allowing the grievance petition it was ordered that I e should be reinstated on duty with full backbenefits to be paid within a period of one month. Appeal. Filed by petitioner factory was dismissed by the learned Appellate Tribunal whereafter this present petition has been tiled to assail the two aforementioned orders.
6. We have heard Mr. Mehmood Habibullah learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashraf Hussain Razvi for respondent No,1 Faqir Gul. The main thrust of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the services of the respondent were never dispensed with/terminated by the management of the factory and as such the grievance application was premature. Respondent Faqir Gul was not a permanent employee and has been avoiding to attend his duty as he is more interested in his shop rather than duty. In the affidvit-in-evidence it was stated that the petitioner-factory was ready to take him back on duty. While referring to Para-6 of the affidavit-in-evidence tiled by Muhammad Munir factory Manager the learned counsel has argued that the management of the factory was ready to take back Faqir Gul on duty but he himself did not turnup. Learned counsel has therefore vehemently urged that at least from the date of the tiling of the affidavit-in-evidence the matter should have come to an end and respondent Faqir Gul should have joined the duty but he went on avoiding the same. The learned counsel has also referred to the replies given by respondent Faqir Gui in his cross-examination conducted by the counsel for the- petitioner. Faqir Gui has admitted that factory remained closed on 3rd and 4th January 1994 on account of protest made by them as the labourers were demanding the payment of Rs, 100 as allowed by the caretaker Government by way of ad-hoc relief. He denied to be a temporary employee or that his services were not terminated and he had himself declined to attend the duty. Learned counsel has also referred to the memo. Of appeal filed before the respondent No,2 wherein the petitioner has showed its willingness to take back Faqir Gul on duty.
The learned counsel has, therefore, argued that at least from the date of the offer made in writing by the petitioner to take back the petitioner on duty there was no justification for the Labour Court or the learned Appellate Tribunal in allowing the backbenefits for the period between the said offer in writing and the date on which respondent Faqir Gul was actually taken back on duty.
7. Mr. Ashraf Hussain Razvi learned counsel for the respondent Faqir Gul has argued that it is the statutory duty of the petitioner-factory to pay the wages for the period in between the dates of illegal termination and the date when respondent No,1 was actually taken back on duty.
8. We have heard Mr. Mehmood Habibullah learned counsel for the petitioner-company and Mr. Ashraf Hussain Razvi learned counsel for respondent No,1-Faqir Gul. We have also gone through the order passed by the learned Labour Court and the learned Appellate Tribunal. The record made available before us has also been examined. We find that there are concurrent findings of the two Courts below so far the nature of the employment of respondent Faqir Gul being a permanent employee of the petitioner is concerned. He had been serving in the petitioner-company as helper for about 10 years and was removed from service without any order in writing stating the reasons for the same in contravention of Order 12(3) of the Standing Order Ordinance, 1968. He has been found to be a permanent worker in the factory which employed about 50 workers and the relationship of workmen and employer has been found to be existing between the parties viz. Petitioner and respondent No,1. The fact that the services of respondent Faqir Gul were terminated without giving him written order and reasons for the same and that the management was not willing to take him back in service. Is evident from the statement of Muhammad Sher Khan authorized representative of the management recorded on 15-2-1994 by the Assistant Director Labour West Division Karachi. The said Sher Muhammad had appeared before the Assistant Director Labour in response to a complaint made by respondent Faqir Gul to the Directorate of Labour West Division. Karachi on 11-1-1994 whereupon a joint meeting was held on 15-2-1994.
9. In view of the discussion made above, we do not find it to be a fit and appropriate case for interference in exercise of our extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction. Resultantly, ,this Constitutional petition merits no consideration and is liable to be dismissed alongwith listed application. However the parties are left to bear their own costs.