MUHAMMAD ABDUL QADEER Versus Messrs. TEXTILE MANAGEMENT LTD. AND Messrs. MUHAMMAD FAROOQ TEXTILES MILLS
ORDER
1. It is alleged by the applicant that he was originally serving Respondent No.2 as a permanent workman. It is further alleged that since both the Respondents are sister concerns, hence after 9 years of service with Respondent No.2 the applicant was required to join Respondent No.l. Accordingly applicant joined Respondent No.l but he was also performing the work of Respondent No.2, as such in fact the applicant was in the employment of Respondent No.2 through Respondent No.l.
2. The grievance for filing the present petition is that Respondent No. 1 terminated the services of the applicant vide impugned order dated 16‑4‑1985 annexure 'A' to the grievance petition. Thereafter applicant sent grievance notice dated 12‑7‑1985 annexure 'B' to the grievance petition to both the respondents. Respondent No.2 did not send reply to the grievance notice, while such reply sent by Respondent No.l has been filed as annexure 'C' to the grievance petition. Since the respondents failed to reinstate the applicant, hence present grievance petition was filed for reinstatement with full back benefits.
3. Reply statement was filed by Respondent No.l while Respondent No.2 filed only legal objections to the effect that the applicant had voluntarily resigned their service on 22‑10‑1977 and was released on 26‑11‑1977. It was alleged that the relationship of employer and employee did not exist between the applicant and the Respondent No.‑2.
4. Respondent No. l submitted that the applicant had joined service on 1‑11‑1979 as per letter of appointment dated 17‑1‑1980. That Respondent No.l was an independent concern and had no connection with respondent No.2. It was also alleged that number of employees working with Respondent No.2 have been less than 20 since its inception, hence the provisions of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Order 1968 were not applicable to Respondent No.l. On merits it was submitted that the applicant's services have been lawfully terminated.
5. Applicant filed his affidavit‑in‑evidence and produced no other witness.
6. On behalf of both the Respondents affidavit‑in‑evidence of Muhammad Usman Nanjee was filed. No other witness was examined by the Respondents.
7. I have heard Mr. M. M. Jeelani, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Masud Mirza, learned representative of the respondents: They have also filed written arguments. My findings are as under:‑
8. The allegation of the applicant is that respondents Nos.l and 2 are the sister concerns, and that he had been working for both of them, Mr. M.M. Jeelani submitted that the allegation of the applicant has been established by none else but by the witness of respondents No.1 and 2 namely Muhammad Usman Nanjee who in paragraph No.l of his affidavit‑in‑evidence clearly stated that till recently he was working as Secretary of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Jeelani further submitted ‑ that besides the affidavit‑in‑evidence of Mr. Muhammad Usman Nanjee, there are other documents produced in evidence which indicate that Respondent Nos.l and 2 are the sister concerns and their management is the same. He invited my attention to the cross examination of Respondents' witness Mr. Nanjee who admitted that the documents annexures A/1 to A/8 filed alongwith the affidavit‑in -evidence of the applicant bear the signature of Haroon Suleman, Pervez Ashraf, Z. A. Shamsi, Javed Afzal, Razia Durani, Shahid Nazeer, Imamuddin, Rahat Noor Khan, Zaheer and Rafique typist as employees of Respondent No.2, while the initials of Respondent No.2 ire also present on documents of Respondent No. 1. The witness further submitted that the signatures of the employees of Respondent No.2 were present on, the documents of Respondent No.l as workers. Mr. Jeelani further pointed out that witness Mr. Nanjee in his cross- examination stated as under:‑
9. "I see annexures C/1 to C/3 filed alongwith affidavit‑in‑evidence of the applicant. It is correct that they are issued by the signature of Mr. Shamsi, Administrative Officer of Respondent No.2. They also bear the signatures of Mrs. Razia Durani, Acting Administrative Officer of Respondent No.2. It is correct that annexure C/2 also bears the signature of Muhammad Farooq Soomar, Chief Executive Director. It is correct that the name of 11 employees alongwith the name of applicant as employee of Respondent No.2 are entered in all the three annexures. I see annexure D/1 it is written by Mr. Farooq Soomar, Chief Executive Director in his own hand and addressed to the applicant. "
10. In view of the above documentary evidence, I am of the opinion that in fact Respondents Nos.l and 2 are the sister concerns, and employ common workers.
11. As regards termination order dated 16‑4‑1984 annexure 'A' to the grievance petition, it is clear that no explicit reason has been assigned for terminating the services of the applicant. There are store of rulings such as 1985 P L C P‑23 and P‑424, and 1984 P L C 79E and others.
12. In order to appreciate the contention of Mr. M.M. Jeelani, it would be proper to reproduce Standing Order 12(3) which runs as under:‑
13. "12(3)‑The services of a workman shall not be terminated, nor shall a workman be removed, retrench, discharged or dismissed from service, except by an order in writing which shall explicitly state the reason for the action taken. In case a workman is aggrieved by the termination of his services or removal, retrenchment, discharge or dismissal, he may (take action in accordance with the provisions of) Section 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (XXIII of 1969) and thereupon the provisions of the said Section shall apply as they apply to the redress of an individual grievance."
14. Obviously the termination order annexure 'A' to the grievance petition does not carry any reason/ground for termination of the services of the applicant. Accordingly in view of the substantive case law, such termination order cannot to legally sustained.
15. In view of the above discussion the impugned termination order is hereby set aside and both the respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant in service with full back benefits within 15 days from the date of this order:
16. M. Y. H./1193/Lb.S Termination set aside.