AMMER BUX Versus Messrs MACKINNON AND MACKENZIE & CO. (PAKISTAN) LTD KARACHI
DECISION
This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 30‑9‑1986, passed by the Sind Labour Court No.V, Karachi, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25‑A, I. R.O. 1969.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant claimed to be a permanent Driver in the respondent establishment since 22‑5‑1981 and was performing duties in the office as also outside the office i.e. at Karachi Airport, Karachi Port Trust and Port Qasim etc. He claimed that in view of the length of his services, he represented several times to the respondent establishment to confirm his employment so on 20‑4‑1986, he sent a grievance petition which was rejected by the respondent establishment vide its letter, dated 20‑4‑1986. Further, he claimed that the respondent establishment was annoyed and had threatened him that his services would be terminated, therefore, he filed a grievance petition under section 25‑A, I. R.O. 1969 before the learned Labour Court alongwith an application under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 C .P. C. Praying therein that the respondent establishment be directed not to terminate the services of the appellant and to hold him a permanent worker with all consequential benefits.
3. The respondent establishment resisted the petition on the main ground that the appellant was never their employee, but he was a personal driver of one of their Executives and that the appellant had never represented to them to treat him as a confirmed employee, therefore, he was not entitled to maintain his grievance petition which was liable to be dismissed.
4. Both the parties produced their respective witnesses evidence and they were duly cross‑examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order, hence the present appeal.
5. I have heard Mr.Riaz Baloch, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr.Masood Mirza, the learned representative on behalf of the respondent establishment and have also carefully perused the record and proceeding of the case. At the very outset, I would hold here that the impugned order is well‑reasoned and needs not' to be interfered with. It is an admitted position that the respondent is an old and highly reputed shipping company and keeps proper record in respect of all appointments, terminations, payments of salaries et c. to its permanent and also to the temporary employees and that the appellant could not produce any such record in support of his claim that he was an employee of the respondent establishment. There is also a document on record, namely, Note Book Exh.3/A, being maintained by one, Mr Younus Nawab, one of the Directors of the company that he was paying monthly salary to the appellant from his own allowances which were being paid by the respondent establishment to its Director for keeping a personal driver. This note book admittedly bears the signatures of the appellant in token of the facts that he received his monthly wages from the said Director. Again, there is an admitted position that from the evidence of the appellant's own witness, namely, Abdul Rasheed, the appellant was not an employee of the respondent establishment and that he was being paid his monthly wages from the pocket of the Director. This witness of the appellant was a responsible and reliable witness being a President of the Union of the workers. Besides this, the appellant could not shake the evidence of the Director ui the respondent establishment, namely Mr. Younus Nawab with whom the appellant, admittedly was working as a personal Driver. The contentions of Mr. Riaz Baloch, the learned Advocate for the appellant that he was supplied with the company's uniform and a cap have no force because it is a normal and established practice that such articles are always issued the personal servants of highly placed Executives of the establishment. In view of this factual and legal position. I would hold that Mr.Riaz Baloch has no case and there is nothing wrong with the impugned order.
6. For the reasons stated by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed.
A. E. /1093/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.