MUHAMMAD ASHFAQUDDIN SIDDIQUI Versus SIEMENS PAKISTAN ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED, KARACHI

DECISION

Muhammad Ashfaquddin Siddiqui had filed a petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969 against M/s. Siemens Pakistan Engineering Company Limited for his reinstatement in service which was allowed, but the back benefits were refused. Both the parties have come in appeal and I propose to dispose of them together by a common decision.

2. The petitioner had alleged that he was working with the respondent ‑as a helper from 1978 and came to be promoted as a fitter in 1980. However, he was not getting the dues he was entitled to as a permanent workman, and had been clamouring for the same. This was not to the liking of the respondents and on 10‑10‑1985 he was called by the Labour Officer in his office and told verbally that he was no more in their employment. He had therefore sent a grievance notice on 1‑12‑1985 which was replied to but offered no redress. Later he had filed the petition before the Labour Court.

3. The respondent in the Written Reply maintained that the petitioner was in the employ of one of their contractors by the name of M/s. Stefcon, and having voluntarily resigned from their employment and collected all the outstanding dues, had left them. There had never been any ties between them and the petitioner. The proceedings being malicious, were liable to be dismissed.

4. The petitioner apart from himself examined two ex‑employees of the respondent. The respondent apart from their Labour Officer Naeemul Haque examined an ex‑Labour Officer by the name of SK Hadi. Certain documents were produced by witness Azmat Hussain and Mr. Moula Dad the Examiner of Questioned Documents from the Police Service, appeared as a Court witness.

5. The Labour Court finding the petitioner to be a workman in the employ of the respondents allowed the petition, but rejected his prayer for back benefits.

6. It was stated by the petitioner, and it is not denied by anybody, that he used to work inside the respondent's factory all along, and used to have his meals free in the respondent's canteeen. He has also added that whenever he was ill, he used to be treated by the doctors on the panel of the respondents. This however was disputed by the witnesses of the respondents. All the same they did admit that every worker in the mill whether on the pay roll of the contractors, or of the respondents, used to get first aid treatment by the Company's doctor. He had also produced some papers to show that ties subsisted between the parties, but they are not of a very material nature and can be left alone. Be that as it may, the case set up by the respondents right from the beginning is, that the petitioner though working inside their factory was in the employ of one of his contractors, namely Stefcon, and Naeemul Haq has gone to the extent of asserting that to his knowledge he had resigned from their employment on 6‑10‑1985, and collected all his dues from the latter. The ex‑other Labour Officer, Hadi had no personal knowledge of these happenings, but he also lent support to the version of the respondents that the petitioner was on the list of Stefcon's workmen.

7. In support of this assertion a number of documents alleged to have been in the handwriting of the petitioner were duly sent to elicit the opinion of the Examiner of Questioned Documents, for which an application had been duly made on behalf of the respondents. The documents were as under:‑‑

"(1) 21 payment sheets, bearing disputed signature which are encircled with red pen.

(2) One voucher of R s. 277 paisas fifty marked Exh. CW/5.

(3) Resignation application of applicant marked as Exh. CW/4.

(4) Final statement of settlement from 28‑5‑1985 to 30‑9‑1985.

(5) Three leaves specimen signatures of applicant taken in the Court, and

(6) One National Identity Card of applicant, No. 502‑86‑499874."

He had examined these disputed signatures and compared them with the specimen signatures of the petitioner, and for the reasons given by him reached the conclusion that the disputed signatures on the abovementioned documents had not been made by him.

8. The plea set up by the respondent therefore falls to the ground and what emerges is, that for all these the petitioner had been working in the respondent's factory.

9. It is noteworthy that the respondents did not produce the contractor in question nor the attesting witnesses of the agreements of contract which have been put by them on the record. The Contracts are for the years 1983, 1987 and 1988 and out of them, the one material for the purpose of the case would be that of 1983. It shows that come winter, come summer, the respondent was to give the contractor a sum of Rs.6,00,000 per year for the services rendered by him which have been enumerated. I will mention some of the benefits which the company was to derive in return from this contract. These are:‑‑

"(2) that the contractors would employ their own skilled, semi‑skilled and unskilled workers on the job, as required and would be responsible for regular payment of their wages and other remuneration and compensations as may be required under the relevant laws and rules.

(5) That in case of any demands by the workers of the contractors which may be either financial or non‑financial will be responsibility of the Contractors.

(7) The Contractors hereby indemnify the Company against all risks, dangers, injuries sustained by their workers for which the Contractors shall be responsible.

(8) That all the payments, including wages, notice pay, gratuity (if applicable) etc., shall be made by the Contractors and the Company shall not be responsible for the workers.

(13) That the Company shall not be responsible in any case or subsidise if the Contractors suffer a loss or damage be that for any reason whatsoever."

I am clearly of the opinion that the Agreement was just a smoke screen to deny the workers the benefits to which they are entitled, as the workmen of the Company. I will therefore uphold the order and will dismiss the appeal filed by M/s. Siemens.

The petitioner had never opened his lips at any stage that he was unemployed and when it was suggested to him in his cross‑examination that he has been working abroad, all he stated was that he was plying a rickshaw. I will therefore dismiss his appeal too.

Orders accordingly.

H.B.T./2155/Lb.S ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeals dismissed.