DECISION ' This appeal has been preferred by Muhammad Rashid from the order of Sindh Labour Court No,III, Karachi, dated 23rd September, 2000 whereby the grievance petition of the appellant has been dismissed. The facts of the case may briefly be summarized as follows. The appellant was working as a Karigar in Ring Department of the Respondents' Mills at the salary of Rs,3000 per month. In his grievance notice dated 1st March, 2000 addressed to the Mills Management he prayed for redressal of the grievances mentioned therein. His foremost grievance was that though he was issued Social Security number yet no appointment order as required by law had been given to him.
He also complained that the management had failed to give him his annual increment and further that he was being compelled to do the work other than the work of Karigar. He further stated that while he was on duty on 23-11-1999, he met an accident in which he lost a small to of his left foot for which he was not paid any compensation for the said injury despite his repeated requests. As the said grievances were left unredressed the appellant was constrained to approach the Labour Court No,III with his grievance petition. As soon as the management came to know about his said case, not only the salary due to him for the month of March 2000, was not paid to him but he was also removed from service by oral order dated 10-4-2000.
2. Subsequent to his removal from service on 10-4-2000 he served a fresh grievance notice dated 4-5-2000 upon the respondents and sent it to the respondents by post with the Acknowledgement Due. It was said that the respondents Management submitted its reply to his grievance notice completely denying all his allegations. However, the dummy respondent No,2 (Contracter) admitted that the appellant had worked in his employment for the months of January and February, 2000, but he had never served the respondents Mills ever since 15-4-1986. In the grievance petition that the appellant filed in the aforesaid Labour Court his prayer was two-fold; his reinstatement in service and payment of full back benefits.
3. In reply submitted by the respondents management the first objection taken by it was that there was no relationship of employer/employee between the parties for purpose of seeking redress through the Court. Since the appellant had no locus standi to file a case against the respondents'
Mills his petition was not maintainable under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969, nor any termination had taken effect in connection with Industrial Dispute. Moreover, the appellant was never employed by the respondents management and as such he did not fall within the definition of the term workman. The Management's further objection was that the appellant's case against two separate and independent respondents was not maintainable, as the said respondents had their separate distinct legal entity. His prayer for reinstatement in service can only be confined to any one of the two respondents. Therefore, the relief claimed by the appellant was misconceived and vague. In fact the Ring Department of the respondents Mills has been given from time to time to independent contractors since 1979/1981 who for executing the said contract employ their own labour and respondents-Management has nothing to do with the employees appointed by the contractor.
According to the said reply the appellant may have been employed by the said contractor but he has never been employed by the respondents-Mills nor had he produced any proof in support of such employment. Therefores, his claim that he was employee of the respondents Management was absolutely wrong. Since the respondents-Management is unaware of the details of the appellant's service record. They did not make any further comments. Since the appellant did not work with the respondents-Mills the question of issuing his appointment order by the said Mills did not arise.
4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties in the light of material available on record. I have also gone through the judgment of Labour Court, particularly the Issues framed by it. It appears to me that Issue No,2 namely, "whether there exists any relationship of the employee and employer between the parties?" is a crucial Issue. According to the appellant he has been working as employee of the respondents-Management for 14 years since 15-4-1986. He has not furnished any proof with regard to his such appointment. The respondents Management have denied that appellant was ever employed by them. Ordinarily written Appointment Order is considered as authentic proof of any appointment but no such proof has been produced by the appellant in support of his claim. In fact it is his own admission that he was appointed by verbal order which does not fmd any corroboration from any quarter.
5. The appellant was removed from service on 10-4-2000. He, therefore, in his grievance notice dated 4-5-2000 addressed to both the respondents-Management and respondent No,2 (Contractor) had prayed for redressal of his normal grievance namely reinstatement in service and payment of back benefits. His claim is obviously inconsistent and contradictory inasmuch as that it should have been restricted to only one respondent. The respondents-Management has already decided that the appellant was never employed by them. Their further statement is that he may have been appointed by their Contractor which finds support from the fact that the appellant had addressed grievance notice not only to the respondent-Management but also to respondent No,2 (Contractor). In the grievances notice he has referred to number of grievance he sought to be redressed. He was not issued appointment letter, he was not given payment of compensation for the injury he had received in the Mill while being on duty, he was not paid any annual increment since the date of his appointment nor any other allowances. According to him though he was issued attendance card like other workers which he used for getting salary but given not appointment order. He admits that even the attendance card was taken back from him. Thus he has produced no proof whatever in support of being in the employment of respondents- Management. It is rather strange that despite that he did not complain either to Labour Department or to other authority with regard to such behaviour of the respondents-Management.
He admits that there was one Union in the Company but he was not member of the same. It is also surprising that according to his own admission all other workers have been given appointment letters by the respondent Management but he alone was made the exception in this regard. Since he was not covered by respondents' E.O.B.I. He never went to the Office of the said E.O.B.I., making complainant in that regard. The appellant has neither examined any witness nor produced any document to prove his case. Though his admission was that he was appointed by the respondent- Management yet strongly enough his services were terminated by respondent No,2 who is admittedly employee of the respondents-Management.
6. Respondent No,2 (Contractor) has produced agreement between him and respondent- Management to show that he was working as Contractor and as such in presence of this document verbal statement of the appellant without support cannot be believed. Respondent No,2 took a right stand on 31-8-2000 that since the appellant stated on oath that he wanted employment from respondent-Management and not from respondent No,2, therefore, he sought no relief from the said respondent No,2 and as such his evidence was not necessary for rebuttal.
That appears to be a reason why respondent No,2 has not filed any affidavit-in-evidence in this case. However, he has produced attendance sheet which shows presence of the appellant for the months of January and February, 2000. It also shows that he was employed by the said respondent No,2 against which the appellant had no grievance even though he was his employee for 2 months only.
7. The learned counsel for appellant repeatedly emphasized on the mandatory provision of law that respondent-Management was bound to issue written appointment order for appointment of the appellant. As stated earlier the respondents-management has made complete denial that appellant was ever appointed by them and there is no written order of the respondent Management in support of the appellant's appointment. It leads to an irresistable conclusion that appellant was never employer by the respondents-Management. The appellant's own admission is that no written order was issued for his appointment. If so his appointment was defective not being in accordance with the mandatory provision of law. It can also be termed as illegal appointment.
The question would arise if the appellant was entitled to any relief on the basis of illegal appointment. If at all he had any claim of reinstatement that was against respondent No,2 namely the contractor who also admits that the appellant was in the employment only for two months and as such after expiry of the said two months he had no relief even against respondent No,2.
8. I have considered the case of the appellant from all angles and found that he has absolutely no case. Accordingly the learned Labour Court was justified in dismissing his petition. Therefore, there is no merit in filing appeal against Labour Court's order. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.