NASIR AHMED Versus ROYAL EXCHANGE ASSURANCE. KARACHI

DECISION

This appeal calls in question the order of the Labour Court dismissing an application of the petitioner (appellate herein) for his reinstatement in service. It has arisen in the following circumstances.

2. It appears that on 14‑1‑1990 there was an incident wherein Mr. Iqbal Hussain, Incharge Fire Department in the respondent establishment is alleged to have been assaulted by the appellant. The latter had received a letter for the holding of the enquiry on 30‑1‑1990 but as he was running temperature he had sent a letter alongwith a Medical Certificate requesting for adjournment. On 31‑1‑1990 he was surprised to learn that he had been dismissed abruptly.

3. The petitioner sent a grievance notice and later filed the petition.

4. It was mentioned in the Reply Statement that the proceedings before the Labour Court did not lie as there were only 16 workmen employed with the respondent, and as a result the provisions of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 were not applicable. The other allegations came to be denied.

5. The petitioner was his own witness. Iqbal Hussain S. Asadullah Khan and a few other persons were examined on behalf of the respondent.

6. Asadullah Khan is the Assistant Manager in this Multinational Company. He had filed a list of the employees, which comprised of 16 workmen including the petitioner. In this cross‑examination he added that there were two other Branches of the Company, one being at Lahore and the other at Rawalpindi, and the workmen of the Company in all were between 40 to 42. Even the petitioner had the following to say in the affidavit‑in‑evidence:‑

"That I say that more than 20 employees are working in the respondent‑Organization. The respondent has filed the list of 16 workers of Karachi Office only, they have not shown the names of the workers employed in the other Branches of the respondent in Lahore and Rawalpindi Offices and in this way they have misled and given false statement before the Honourable Court. The Company is Multi national Organization having many branches inside and outside the country and as such the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 is very much applicable to them:"

All this speaks' for itself. There being no specific denial of the number of workers employed at Karachi as 16, the provision of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 cannot be attracted at all. There is enough law on the subject that a Company can have separate establishments even in one town which will have their separate and distinct entities. In the instant case the other two offices are at far‑flung places. (See Muhammad Aqil v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal PLD 1978 Kar. 649 and Ihsan Sons Limited v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal etc. 1987 PLC 390).

7. In this view of the matter it is hardly necessary to examine the question whether the removal of the appellant was proper or otherwise. It might, however, be mentioned that the respondent had offered a cheque of a month's salary in lieu of notice, which had not been accepted by the appellant.

8. I will therefore uphold the order of the Labour Court and dismiss the appeal.

H.B.T./2141/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.