MUHAMMAD ASHIQ Versus Messrs SHAHEEN AIRPORT SERVICES, KARACHI
DECISION
These arc seventeen separate appeals filed by each appellant against a common impugned order, dated 10‑8‑1987, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. IV at Karachi, who had dismissed all the 17 grievance petitions of the appellants under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969. As the points involved in all these 17 appeals are same and similar, therefore, I would also decide all these appeals by this single Decision.
2. These 17 appellants claimed to have been permanently working in the respondent establishment on different positions and cadres from different dates and all of a sudden their services were illegally and abruptly terminated simpliciter, so, being aggrieved they had served grievance notices followed by their grievance petitions under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969, vide letter dated 13‑11‑1986.
3. The respondent establishment had resisted all the petitions mainly on the grounds that it was one of the Units of the Shaheen Foundation Pakistan Air Force to provide ground service to the International Flights of foreign Airlines with high‑standard of discipline, vigilance, efficiency, fitness and reliability. Further, it was claimed by the respondent establishment as there was sensitive aspect of security at the Airport, therefore, for employment people required the investigation of their antecedents and as such, to perform the dupes in the restricted area, they had to obtain Security pass for having trust and confidence of the concerned authorities. The claim of the respondent establishment was further that the employment was solely depending upon the existence of confidence and trust of the management in respect of the sensitive security at the Airport, it was lost by the management, hence, there was no alternative with them, but to terminate their services forthwith and that it was not at all connected with any union activities or with mala ride intentions and victimization. Thus, their grievance petitions were not entertain able and were liable to be dismissed.
4. By consent of both the parties before the learned Labour Court all the petitions were consolidated and for the purpose of evidence on behalf of all the appellants, the evidence in case of Ashiq on behalf of both the parties, was taken to be read in all cases. Therefore, Muhammad Ashiq, Habibullah, Akhtar Zaman, Altaf Ahmad and Mirza Javed Baig were tendered in evidence on behalf of the appellants, while, Wing Commander (Retired) S.A.A. Jafri, Manager Administration of the respondent establishment had been examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order hence, the present 17 separate appeals.
5. I have heard at length Mr. Junaid Farooqi, the learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Samiullah Khan, the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent establishment and have also perused the record and proceedings of the case. I have also carefully and thoroughly examined all the documents of secret in nature which had been referred by the learned Labour Court in its impugned order and were also kept in safe custody. At the very outset, I would observe here that the learned Labour Court had discussed at length each and every factual as well as legal aspect of the case before passing the well reasoned impugned order and so, I would uphold the same. It is an admitted position that for all employments in the respondent establishment, people have to obtain Entry/Security Passes from the A.S.F. and other Government agencies, responsible for the security of the restricted areas in Airport, so that they should perform their duties smoothly with frill confidence and trust. In the present cases, the admitted position is that the services of all the appellants severe terminated only on the sole ground that the Entry/Security Passes of these appellants were withdrawn by the A.S.F. authorities. There is nothing also on record on behalf of the appellants to prove that the services of the appellants were dispensed with as a measure of victimization on account of their bona fide trade union activities. It is a settled principle of law that the burden to prove this allegation against the respondent establishment was upon the appellants which they had failed to do so, However, Mr. Junaid Farooqi, the learned Advocate for the appellants has argued that it is at the behest of the respondent establishment that the Entry Passes of the appellants were withdrawn. I find, from the confidential report that it was not so. It maintains, as under:‑
As a result of this I have lost confidence in them and cannot take any responsibility for their conduct.
1. SAPS‑027‑Habibullah Loader
2. SAPS‑142‑Ashiq Loader
3. SAPS‑528‑Akhtar Mahmood Loader
4. SAPS‑093‑MirzaJaved Baig Loader
5. SAPS‑554‑Rchm Ali Loader
6. SAPS‑120‑Khan Afser Loader
7. SAPS‑226‑Altaf Mahmood Loader
8. SAPS‑384‑Salccm Qureshi Loader
9. SAPS‑153‑Akhtar Zaman Driver
10. SAPS‑150‑Sattar Eqpt. Optr.
11. SAPS‑195‑M. Aslam Khan Driver
12. SAPS‑035‑Noor Muhammad E'(fpi. t)ptr.
13. SAPS‑306‑Qurcsh Khan Driver
14. SAPS‑240‑M. Ashraf Driver
15. SAPS‑033‑Shcr Alam Eqpt. Optr.
16. SAPS‑466‑Arshad Iqbal Driver
17. SAPS‑479‑Javed Akhtar Driver
I, therefore, request that they may please be taken away from the real forthwith.
6. In view of the above facts, I would hold that the termination of the services of the appellants was quite correct and it must be maintained. The learned Labour Court had done nothing wrong in upholding the termination of the services of all these seventeen appellants.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Samiullah Khan, the learned Advocate for the respondent establishment in view of the above admitted factual, legal and secret facts of the case, had added nothing new in his arguments which he had submitted before the learned Labour Court in support of his case.
8. For the reasons discussed by them above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would accordingly maintain the same. The result would be that all these seventeen (17) appeals arc hereby dismissed.
A.E./1277/Lb.S.
Appeals dismissed.