NAZIR AHMED Versus GILLETTE PAKISTAN LIMITED
This matter involves appeals against the dismissal of grievance petitions filed by drivers seeking reinstatement and regularization of service against Gillette Pakistan Limited. The core legal question was whether an employer-employee relationship existed between the appellants and the respondent company, making grievance petitions maintainable under labour laws, or whether the appellants were merely personal drivers of individual company officers. The Supreme Court examined the appointment letters and evidence on record to determine the true nature of the employment. The Court held that the terms and conditions of employment, including remuneration, allowances, and benefits, established the employment relationship with the company rather than individual officers. The key principle laid down is that the documentary evidence and terms of appointment govern the determination of an employer-employee relationship in industrial disputes, overriding oral assertions of private employment.
- Whether an employer-employee relationship exists between a company and drivers whose appointment letters and remuneration are handled by the company?
- Are grievance petitions under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 maintainable for drivers claiming regular employment against a company?
- Do terms relating to monthly remuneration, allowances, and annual leave in an appointment letter establish company employment?
- Section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969
DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J .---We propose to dispose of both these appeals by common judgment as same arise out of same impugned judgment and common points of law and facts are involved.
2. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that appellants in Appeal No. 1501 of 1997 and Ghulam Ali in Appeal No. 1502 of 1997 had been working with Gillette Pakistan Limited, respondent No. 1, as Driver since 25-1-1990 and 16-5-1991 respectively. Both the appellants submitted their applications for regularization and confirmation in accordance with the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. On receipt of the said applications,, their services were terminated without notice or reason and even without written order with effect from 31-5-1993. Against their termination from services, the appellants filed separate grievance petitions before the IIIrd Labour Court, Balochistan, Hub under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) praying for their reinstatement in the service with full back benefits.
3. The respondent filed objections, controverted the averments of the appellants and denied that the appellants were employees of the company but they were appointed as their personal drivers by senior officers of the respondents. During pendency of the grievance petitions, the appellants filed their affidavit-in-evidence alongwith that of Sattar whereas on behalf of the respondent one Syed Kazim Ali, an employee of the respondents field affidavit-in-evidence, The Labour Court framed two issues, namely, whether there existed relationship of employer and employee between the parties and whether the appellants are entitled to relief claimed for?
4. At the conclusion of the case, learned trial Court allowed the applications of the appellants as prayed for. The respondents impugned the order of the Labour Court before the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal, Balochistan which accepted the appeals of the respondents and reversed the judgment of the Labour Court
5. The appellants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the findings of the learned Tribunal separately filed Civil Petitions Nos. 131 and 132 of 1995 which were dismissed in limine by the learned High Court of Balochistan vide order, dated 20-6-1995.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, this Court granted leave in both the appeals to consider whether the impugned order of the learned High Court that the petitioners were not the employees of respondent No.1 company but were personal drivers of the officers of the respondent company and their applications under section 25A of the Ordinance were not maintainable is sustainable on the evidence on record.
7. We have heard Mr. Mehta K.N. Kohli, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Muhammad Munir Peracha, learned counsel for respondent No. l Mr. Kohli submitted that the appellants were employed by the respondents-company as their drivers. He has also referred to appointment letters of both the appellants to show that monthly remuneration, annual leave, fare assistance, medical assistance leave, schedule of work, other assigned work, uniform, contractual obligations, termination of employment and terminal gratuity are indicated in terms unequivocal. He has also referred to the affidavit-in-evidence of Syed Kazim Ali in which the witness in his cross-examination had admitted certain facts which will be highlighted hereafter. Mr. Kohli further submitted that learned High Court of Balochistan did not minutely consider and discuss the evidence produced by the parties during trial which resulted in the miscarriage of justice to, the appellants.
8. Mr. Muhammad Munir Peracha, learned counsel for the respondents with vehemence pointed out that the factual controversies were involved in the matter and the learned High Court of Balochistan with cogent reasons has rightly dismissed the petitions in limine with which no exception can be taken.
9. We have gone through the material placed on the record. It would be advantageous to reproduce the contents of the appointment letters issued in favour of the appellants both containing the same terms and conditions:-----
'This is to confirm your appointment as my personal driver effective August 1, 1990 on the following terms and conditions:
1. MONTHLY REMUNERATION:
Your gross monthly remuneration payable by me at the end of each month will be Rs.2,054 broken up as under:--
Basic salary Rs.1,244
House Rent Allowance, 45% Rs. 560
Conveyance Allowance, 10% Rs. 125
Utilities Allowance, 10% Rs. 125
-----------
Rs.2,054
-----------
(2) Annual Leave Fare Assistance.-- You will be entitled to Leave fare