SOUVENIR TOBACCO CO. LTD. vs NAJAMMUDDIN AND OTHERS

' The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1913 and is carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of cigarettes. The workers of the petitioner's company formed a Trade Union which is also Collective Bargaining Agent. A canteen was also established in the petitioner's Factory which is managed and controlled by the Canteen Managing Committee formed under the Karachi Factories Canteen Rules, 1953. According to the agreement arrived at between the Workers' Union and the petitioner on 27th August 1974 (Memo. Of Agreement is available on page 37 of the petition) the Canteen Managing Committee was fully responsible for the management and control of the affairs of Canteen.

2. The respondent No, 1 who was employed as a Munshi of the Canteen was removed from service on the ground that after the reorganization of the canteen his services were no more required. He accordingly filed an application under section 25-A of I. R. O., 1969 to the Junior Labour Court which was allowed and he was ordered to be re-instated with full back benefits. The petitioner challenged this order before the Labour Court but with no success.

' It is against the order of Junior Labour Court dated 16th October 1974, and the order of Labour Court dated 21st November 1974, that the petitioner has filed this constitutional petition.

3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No, 1 was never employed by the petitioner. According to the Karachi Factories Canteen ladles on 1953 read with the contents of above-mentioned settlement, the affairs of the canteen of the petitioner were directly under the control and the management of the Canteen Managing Committee and the application for re-instatement should have been filed against the said Committee and not against the petitioner whose participation towards the canteen affair was only to this extent that they paid a subsidy of Rs, 5,000 per month to the canteen and had two representatives on the panel of the canteen committee to look after the affairs of the canteen. However, the presence of the two representatives aid not mean the transfer of the control of the affairs of the canteen to the petitioner. The petitioner's participation is to a limited extent and therefore if at all any action was contemplated by the respondent No, 1 it should have been initiated against the Canteen Managing Committee which was solely responsible for the Management of the canteen and which had two epresentatives of the petitioner and two members from amongst the employees on its panel. The letter of termination of services of respondent No, 1 had also been issued by the Canteen Managing Committee under the signatures of its Chairman and not by the petitioner. The contentions raised by the learned counsel have sufficient force because the perusal of the Karachi Factories Canteen Rules of 1953 as well as the Memo of Agreement dated 27th August 1974, shows that the A Canteen Managing Committee was exclusively responsible for the control of the affairs of the canteen. This Committee was formed under the aforesaid rules and therefore it was validly constituted committee. The services of the respondent No, 1 had been terminated by this Committee vide letter dated 1st September 1974. It could not, therefore, be held by the Junior Labour Court and Labour Court that the respondent No, 1 was employee of the petitioner.

4. Before I part with the case, I may mention here that the respondent No, 1 is not present today, The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out to me that he was represented by Mr. Hameed M.

Siddiqui, Advocate on the last date of hearing but now Mr. Hameed M. Siddiqui has withdrawn from the case. According to him the respondent No, 1 has joined elsewhere and therefore he is no more interested in contesting this case. Be that as it may, the petition is being disposed of purely on merits.

5. For the reasons recorded above, I allow this petition with no orders as to costs and declare the impugned orders as illegal. The petitioner had been ordered to deposit the amount of salary of respondent No, 1 in Court which they are allowed to withdraw.