GHOSIA BEGUM Versus SAITEX PHARMACEUTICALS (PVT.) LIMITED, KARACHI

DECISION

Ghosia Begum, Shaheen Akhter, Shagufta Sultana, Darakhshan Perveen and Shabana Habib had joined M/s. Saitex Pharmaceuticals (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi as Packing girls on 26‑9‑1990, 13‑5‑1990, 26‑6‑1990, 13‑5‑1990 and 27‑5‑1990 respectively. As to be found in the letters given to them their appointments were "purely of temporary basis and you have no claim for being made permanent nor would you be entitled 'to any benefits available to a permanent employee etc." On or about the 6th of February, 1991 their services were terminated in the following words:‑‑

"Reference your appointment letter the job for which you were engaged has ceased to exist. Your services are no longer required, you are therefore discharged with effect from 7‑2‑1991 after close of work:"

2. All of them had served the company with grievance notices and had later on riled petitions before the Labour Court No. 1, Karachi.

3. The petitions came to be 'resisted on the grounds that as the appointments were of a temporary nature, the provisions of Standing Order 12(3) and/or 15 would not come into play. Otherwise too their termination of service was in terms of the agreement. It was further said that proviso 2 to subsection (4) of section 1 also precluded the application of Standing Order 15 in respect of establishments where there are not more than 49 workmen.

4. The petitioners were their own witnesses and Abdul Bari Khan, Manager Administration appeared on behalf of the respondent Company.

5. The Labour Court found that the proviso 2 to subsection (4) of section 1 was not attracted in the case. It was further found that the jobs which were being performed by the petitioners were of permanent nature and had not ceased to exist. It therefore allowed the petitions. Shagufta Sultana, Shabana Habib and Darakhshan Perveen were awarded full back benefits but the same was denied to Ghosia Begum and Shaheen Akhtar as they had worked with some other company for sometime.

6. M/s. Saitex Pharmaceuticals (Pvt.) Ltd. have come in appeal against the order of reinstatement while Ghosia Begum and Shaheen Akhtar have assailed that part of the order which has totally denied them back benefits.

7. Mr. Humayun learned counsel for M/s. Saitex Pharmaceuticals (Pvt.) Ltd.; very properly did not repeat the contention regarding the maintainability of the petitions as demonstrably they were tenous in nature. It is therefore not necessary to advert to that aspect of the matter at all.

8. The only question which remains for consideration is whether the services of the respondent were of a temporary nature and could be terminated in terms of the appointment letters.

9. The respondents in their statements had clearly mentioned that after their services had been dispensed with, the appellants had engaged other working hands, who were even named by them. Abdul Bari Khan the witness of the factory began by saying that the work was essentially of a temporary nature and the respondents were given temporary attendance cards. However, he admitted that they are manufacturers of medicines and drugs as ordered by the Ministry of Health, Islamabad. They also supplied their products to their own distributors. He admitted that their factory had been inspected in the month of October by a Central Team of the Labour Department and there was a report which had been given by the team. It was put to him that he had signed the list of 58 workers to the Inspection Team. This was denied, but he had promised to produce the Inspection Report which however was honoured only in breach. He had also to concede "that after the termination of the applicant, workers were appointed in their places". It went on to say that "the workers always work on the post where the present applicants were working".

10. With this unequivocal statement of the factory's witness the protence of the jobs being temporary in nature cannot be sustained. There were packing girls before the employment of the respondents and when they were shown out of the factory's door, there were others to replace them. The tenor of the appointment letters given to the respondents only betray the anxiety of the company to deny a square deal to their employees. The reason given for their removal is manifestly false and unconditional and has been very properly repelled by the Labour Court.

11. All the respondents had clearly mentioned that they were jobless. However, Ghosia Begum stated in cross‑examination that she had worked with another concern for 2‑1/2 months, and Shaheen Akhter stated that she had worked elsewhere for one month. No attempt was made to show that this did not depict the truth nor there was any evidence led to rebut their version.

12. I am therefore of the view that Ghosia Begum and Shaheen Akhtar will be entitled to full back benefits from the date of the termination of their services till they are reinstated, with a deduction of 2‑1/2 months in the case of Ghosia Begum and one month in the case of Shaheen Akhtar. Their appeals are allowed in these terms. The appeal of M/s: Saitex Pharmaceuticals (Pvt.) Ltd. stands dismissed.

Orders accordingly

H.B.T./2196/Lb.S Orders accordingly.