S. RASHID ALI Versus MARINE SERVICES (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI

DECISION

These twenty‑five appeals against a common order of‑the Sindh Labour Court No. IV, Karachi, dismissing the petitions under section 25‑A of the I.R.0.,1969, arise in the following circumstances.

2. It is alleged that the petitioners were working with the respondents as Assistant Mechanics, Mechanic Helpers, Electricians and jobs of like nature for some time. On 28‑10‑1989, they had decided to form a union of their own and the list of Members had been communicated to the respondents on the 30th. Notwithstanding the fact that the respondents resorted to arm twisting to pressurise the petitioners to withdraw the application from lie Office of Registrar Trade Unions they had stood their ground. , is respondents were irked and when on the morning of 15‑11‑1989 the petitioners had reported for duty they were informed that they were no more wanted td the respondents had entrusted the work to a Contractor. They had, therefore sent individual grievance notices and getting no reply or satisfaction had filed separate petitions against their unwarranted removal from service.

3. The petitions came to be resisted inter alia on the ground that in is Karachi Port Trust Area no individual worker is attached to or in the employ of any particular stevedor and there was no relationship of employer its employee between the parties. Otherwise too the number of employees with the respondents precluded the application of Standing Orders Ordinance.

4. The petitioner filed their affidavits and by consent of the parties only Rashid Ali was cross‑examined from amongst them which was treated as cross admission on behalf of the respondents in all the other petitions. The petitioners had also examined Muhammad Ali the Pass Issuing Officer of the K.P.T. Junaid Ahmed Usman, the Manager of the respondents, was examined on their behalf.

5. Finding the material issues against the petitioners the Labour Court dismissed the petitions resulting in these appeals.

6. The respondents are a stevedors firm whose business is to load and unload the cargo of their customers from aboard the vessels at Karachi. There is no gainsaying the fact that all this work is done by the workers who are not the employees of the stevedore. Looking to the paramount importance of export and import of goods the Government could not brook with equanimity bottlenecks in the loading and unloading work or agitational activities in the Port Area and therefore on the 3rd of November, 1973 issued an Ordinance being No. XXVIII of 1973 to provide for regulating the employment of dock workers. Clause 3 thereof was to the effect that the Federal Government may make a Scheme for the registration of dock workers with a view of ensuring greater regularity of employment and for efficient and economic turn‑round of ships and vessels. The Scheme known as the Karachi Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1973, came to be made by the Government on the 3rd of December, 1973.

7. Under clause 4 thereof the Federal Government was to constitute a Board, by means of a Notification that was to be responsible for the administration of the Scheme. It consisted of 14 members. Its functions are detailed under clause 7, which inter alia shows that the objective of the Scheme was to regulate the recruitment and entry and discharge from the scheme dock workers and the allocation of registered dock workers in the register keeping and maintaining the employers' register making provisions for the welfare of dock workers including medical services; fixing and recovering from registered employers and other beneficiaries contributions in respect of the expenses of the Scheme; maintaining and administering a provident fund and a gratuity fund and raising money etc. etc. The Powers of the Board as to be found in clause 8, was:

(a) fix the number of dock workers to be registered under various categories;

(b) .......................

(c)

(d) ..................................

(e) .....................................

(i) determine the wages, allowances and other conditions of service and refix the guaranteed minimum wages in a month after review;

(g) fix the rate of levy under sub‑clause (i) of clause 50;

(h) ......................................

(i) .....................................

(j) .

(k) ......................................

(l) ..

(m) endeavour to settle disputes about which a request for adjudication has been made by the parties concerned etc. etc.

Clause 35 reads as under:

35.Obligations of registered dock workers.‑‑‑(1) Every registered dock worker shall be deemed to have accepted the obligations of this Scheme.

(2) A registered dock worker in Register I, who is available for work, shall be deemed to be; in the employment of the Board.

(3) A registered dock worker in Register I, who is available for work at the call stands or control points, shall not engage himself for employment under a registered employer unless he is allocated to that employer by the Administrative Body.

(4) ..

(5) ..

Mention may also be made of clause 41 which reads as under;

41. Pay in respect of an employment or under‑employment.‑‑‑(1) Subject to the conditions set out in this clause and clause 42, when in any wage period a registered dock worker in Register I is available for work but is not given employment of full employment, he shall be entitled to receive from the Board such amounts as may be admissible to him under clauses 29, 30 and 32.

8. As to be found in the case of Veera and another v. Kazi & Kazi Ltd. (PLD 1990 Supreme Court 435), under the new scheme dock workers were neither the employees of the stevedors nor were they permanently attached to them. They become entitled to ~ get work through the Board as a system of rotation of gangs and Tindals and Serangs who were wedded to these gangs

9. Admittedly none of the appellants have produced a shred of a paper to show that they were employees .of the respondents. All that they could manage was to produce entry passes permitting ingress and egress to the KPT Area where the West Wharf is situated. The evidence in the case has so much to wish. Muhammad Ali, Pass Issuing Officer has very clearly stated that the possession of the entry pass, which is valid for a few months can never be conclusive proof of employment. Be that as it may it is difficult to conceive every stevedors it can easily be understood that there must be scores of them operating at the Port should be retaining a hords of mechanics, electricians etc. to help them in their operation. Muhammad Ali had brought the file containing the applications from the respondent company with requests for issuing passes in respect of their employees which has been brought on the record as Exh. A.W.

2. That shows only a strength of five persons whose names also are to be found there.

10. This being the position the question of the application of the provisions of the Standing Orders Ordinance does not arise as there are only five workers of the respondents only, who are working at the Wharf.

11. I am, therefore, of the opinion that there is no merit in these appeals. I will, therefore, affirm the order and dismiss these appeals..

H.B.T./2211/Lb.S Appeals dismissed,