MANZOOR AHMED SALEEMI Versus OLYMPIA SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLSLTD., KARACHI

DECISION

The circumstances in which this appeal has arisen are as follows:

2. The appellant alleges that he was employed by M/s. Olympia Silk Mills on 6‑7‑1966 and worked there upto 19‑9‑1970, when he was transferred to the Head Office of the respondent establishment‑‑‑the respondents owned a chain of factories. On 7‑6‑1990, however, his services were terminated verbally. He gave the grievance notices on 25‑8‑1990 to the Head Office and also to the Silk Mills. The latter was returned undelivered while the former was served. Not receiving any reply to the notice he was constrained to file the grievance petition.

3. In the written reply filed by the respondents the relationship of employer and employee came to be denied, and so also the receipt of the notice. It was further alleged that the factory in question had been closed in 1989 and the petitioner had nothing to do with the Head Office as alleged, otherwise too the number of employees there being within twenty, the Standing Orders Ordinance did not apply.

4. The appellant appeared as his own witness and one Anwar Saigal, the Chief Accountant, appeared on behalf of the respondents. The learned Presiding Officer found that the service of the grievance notice was not proved, the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance were not applicable to the respondent establishment and the case as set up by the petitioner was false as there was no proof that he had ever at all been employed by the respondents.

5. Adverting to the service of the grievance notice it is to be seen that the one despatched with the address of the Head Office was served while the other one addressed to the factory was returned undelivered. Admittedly there was a Chowkidar at the gate of the mill though it had been out of production since 1959. It is true that the address of the Head Office is the old one, and the same had changed in January, 1990 from MA. Jinnah Road (Bunder Road) to Shaheed‑e‑Millat Road but the very fact that the address of the factory is not disputed and the postal receipt is on the record, it would be deemed that the respondent were duly served.

6. It appears from the record that Mian Muhammad Sadiq, Who was the owner of all the 15 concerns brought on the record, died in 1982. Disputes aroses between his three sons Mian Anwar, Mian Waqar and Mian Mukhtar, his widow and daughters. There was a division of the assets. It is brought on the record that the Olympia Spinning and Weaving Mills at Karachi had not been working since 1989. Anwar Saigal has produced documents to show that the electricity of the mill was discontinued on 18‑3‑1990, the Property‑Tax to the extent of Rs.4,43,574 was outstanding against the mill and there was notice of auction as the dues had remained up‑paid in spite of repeated demands. It is also clear from the record that there was a change in the Directorship of the mill in question on 18‑1‑1990 and information of the same was duly communicated to the Registrar of Companies on Form XXIX. There was also change of the Head Office on the same day from Insurance House No. 1, Habib Square, M.A. Jinnah Road, to Shaheed‑e‑Millat Road, Karachi.

7. The case of the appellant is that he was told by Mian Anwar on 7‑6‑1990 that he was no more wanted in their employment. It is clearly established on the record that Mian Anwar had ceased to be a Director of the Company on 18‑1‑1990. Even the Head Office had been changed. So, it is rather surprising that the removal of the appellant from employment should have been brought about by Mian Anwar.

8. The very petition did not lie, as Anwar Saigal has produced the list of the employees of the Head Office and the pay slips of the employees. It contains 10 persons out of whom three are Executives of the Mill. The name of the appellant is not to be found therein.

9. I have no reason to disbelieve the pay slips and employees list as furnished by the respondent and in the circumstances of the case I agree with the learned Presiding Officer that at the relevant time there was neither any relationship of employer and employee between the parties nor the provisions of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 would be applicable to the respondent.

10. It has been stated by Anwar Saigal that the appellant, and Mian Anwar's family hail from Chinnote and that he had been set up by Mian Anwar to black‑mail the respondent, as the terms of the brothers were very strained. Be that as it may, there is no merit in the appeal; I would, therefore, uphold the impugned order and dismiss it.

H.B.T./2085/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.