ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

 

C.P. No.D-1046 of 2013

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date                            Order with signature of Judge

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

PRESENT:          MR. JUSTICE SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI

     MR. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD JUNAID GHAFFAR

 

 

DATE OF HEARING 18.11.2013

-------------------------------------------

 

Ms. Sarwar Jehan, Advocate for the Petitioner.

 

***********

 

Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi J;             Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment passed by the Sindh Labor Appellate Tribunal at Karachi in Appeal No.KAR-1250/2010 (L.A. 227/2007) and order passed on Application No.20/2006 filed under section 46 of I.R.O. 2002 by the Labour Court # 1, Karachi, the Petitioner filed present Petition.

 

            On 01.06.2004 the petitioner was employed with the Respondent No.1 as Manager Finance at the monthly salary of Rs.30,000/-. Petitioner’s services were terminated verbally on 01.12.2005. He sent grievance notice to the Respondent No.1 on 27.12.2005, which was not replied. Thereafter, petitioner filed grievance application under section 46 of the IRO 2002 (repealed) before the Labour Court. Respondent No.1 contested the case, filed written statement and evidence of the parties were recorded before the Labour  Court. Labour Court had given its findings on the following issues:-

1.         Whether the applicant is a workman/worker for filing the present grievance application, if no, whether the grievance application of the applicant is not maintainable in law and this Court has no jurisdiction to decide the grievance application ?

 

2.         Whether the termination of the applicant from service is illegal, if so, whether he is entitled for reinstatement in service with or without back benefits?

 

3.         What should the order be?

            By a very comprehensive order Sindh Labour Court No.1, Karachi has held that the Petitioner had failed to prove him a workman/worker for the purpose of the Standing Orders Ordinance 1968 or even IRO 2002 and dismissed the grievance application. Petitioner challenged the order of the Labour Court before this Court vide Labour Appeal No.227/2007. However, case then was transferred to Sindh Labor Appellate Tribunal at Karachi and the Appeal was renumbered No.KAR-1250/2010. By the impugned decision the learned Sindh Labor Appellate Tribunal upheld/maintained the order passed by the Labour Court and dismissed the Appeal filed by the Petitioner.

 

            Ms. Sarwar Jahan learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the learned Labour Court and Labour Appellate Tribunal, both have failed to consider the facts and evidence brought on record and have given their findings on surmises and conjectures. She further argued that Respondent No.1 had failed to produce any evidence in respect of hiring and firing power of the Petitioner, although the Petitioner was designated as Manager Finance having no hiring and firing powers and was working manually and as a workman, sometime alone and sometime with the help of some assistant and even the Petitioner was not allowed to approve day to day petty cash vouchers. She further argued that both the Courts below have erred in holding that the Petitioner is not a workman and has come under the ambit of section 46 of the IRO, 2002. Main contention raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner was that the Petitioner was a workman/worker.

 

            We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the material available before us carefully.

 

            The term “worker and workman” has been defined in section 2(xxx) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 in the following words:-  

“worker” and “workman” means any and all persons not falling within the definition of employer who is employed in an establishment or industry for remuneration or reward either directly or through a contractor, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purpose of any proceeding under this Ordinance in relation to an industrial dispute includes a person who has been dismissed, discharged, retrenched, laid-off or otherwise removed from employment in connection with or as a consequence of that dispute or whose dismissal, discharge, retrenchment, lay-off or removal has led to that dispute but does not include any person who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity”.

 

 

            Petitioner during his cross examination before the Labour Court had deposed that :-

“It is correct that Ms. Hina and Mr. Kamran used to work under my subordination. It is incorrect that I had removed the above said Kamran and Ms. Hina from the employment. It is correct that they had leveled an allegation against me by way of making a complaint to the higher authorities of respondent.”

 

 

            Whereas the witness of the Respondent No.1 Dr. Farhan Essa Abdullah in his affidavit-in-evidence stated that :-

“That the applicant was appointed as Finance Manager by the respondent in his Laboratory on a monthly salary of Rs.30,000.00. The applicant was head of Finance Department and there were several employees working from the respondent to hire and fire the workers as such the applicant was not a workman and therefore, the application filed by the applicant is not maintainable as this august Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain the application and is liable to be rejected.”

 

 

And witness of Respondent No.1 namely Arshad Hussain in his affidavit-in-evidence stated that:-

“Mr. Muhammad Ali Akhtar joined the respondent in June, 2004 and he worked as Manager Finance. The applicant was fully authorized to hire and fire worker on his choice. The respondent had given him full power and authority in this connection as he was Finance Manager. The applicant had appointed one Sehar Gul in Accounts Department. I used to work under the applicant in Accounts Department and alongwith me Mr. Moiz, Mr. Qais and Shakeel Ahmed were appointed by the applicant at the time and they also worked in the Accounts Department under him.”

 

           

            Learned Counsel for the Petitioner cross examined the witness of Respondent No1 in respect of the nature of duties and status of the Petitioner as head of the Finance Department. Evidence adduced by the witnesses of Respondent No.1 before the Labour Court had gone unchallenged and un-rebutted. It has been established from the material available on record that the petitioner had

 

powers to hire and fire in the company and to make administrative decisions.

           

In our view findings of facts recorded by the Sindh Labour Court No.1 at Karachi is in accordance with the evidence, which was upheld by the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi. No misreading or non-reading of any material evidence or any illegality has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner in the impugned orders of both the Courts below. Findings of facts recorded by the two forums below do not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. We are not persuaded to hold that the orders/decisions passed by the two forums below are illegal or without lawful authority.

 

            Above are the reasons whereby the instant Petition was dismissed in limine by our short order dated 18.11.2013.           

           

 

      J U D G E

 

 

Karachi

Dated : _______________                                                      J U D G E