Law: Industrial Relations Act, 2012

Section: X,2(viii),2(xxviii),33

Law: Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968

Section: VI,2(c),2(f),2(h),15(4)

Law: National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 2016

Section: 60(1)

(a) Industrial Relations Act (X of 2012)-------Ss. 2 (viii) & (xxviii) & 33---Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.Os.2(c), (f) & (h) and 15(4)---Grievance petition---Contract between company and contractor for supply of labour (employees)---Status of such employees---Plea of the Respondents / PTCL was that the petitioner was not their employee but of contractor (Ask Development) which was evident from an appointment letter dated 07-02-2017 issued by Ask Development which was signed by petitioner---Validity---Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on 03-03-2001 as Lab Technician ; whereas, annexed appointment letter of Respondents/ PTCL, having been signed by the their Assistant General Manager (S&E) M.TR, also showed that the petitioner was directly appointed byPTCL and there was no mention of Ask Development in said appointment order--Therefore, the petitioner was actually employee of PTCL and not Ask Development---Thus, Ask Development was dummy contractor having no authority over the petitioner---Petitioner served more than 15 years with the Respondents / PTCL, thus, how was it possible that the petitioner was terminated from service byAsk Development on 11-05-2020---Letter dated 07-02-2017 by the Respondent/contractor (Ask Development) was based on mala fide and it had no legal status---It was evident from the record (salary slip etc.) that the petitioner had directly received his monthly salary from Respondents / PTCL, showing that the petitioner was on the pay roll of the respondents / PTCL and worked under the management of the respondents / PTCL and not of Respondent / contractor (Ask Development)---Record also showed that on 23-12-2005, an investigation committee, consisting of three members of respondents / PTCL, had been made for investigation of daily wages employees and the said committee verified 34 employees and the petitioner was also included in the said list at serial number 34--Thus, the present matter did not require further evidence as it was a very simple case and everything was clear in it and the counsels for the parties also agreed to decide the case without recording of…