Talib Hussain v. Star General Hospital

Background

The applicant filed a grievance application under section 34 of the Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013 (SIRA) against Star General Hospital, a private hospital in Malir, Karachi. He said he had worked as a driver for the hospital since 2016, that no appointment letter was issued, and that he was verbally terminated on 18.03.2025 without a show-cause notice, inquiry or written order. He sought reinstatement with back benefits or, in the alternative, his dues.

The hospital denied that he was ever its employee. Its case was that he had been engaged privately, around mid-2018, as a personal chauffeur for the family of a doctor associated with the hospital and paid by that doctor in cash. It said the hospital owns no vehicles and employs no drivers, and that he left the private engagement himself during Ramzan 2025.

Issues before the Court

• Was the applicant a workman employed by the hospital?
• Was he terminated by the hospital?
• Had he served a valid grievance notice, as section 34 requires?

The Court's reasoning

Employment relationship. The Court said that the absence of an appointment letter is not fatal by itself. But where the relationship is specifically denied, the worker must show engagement by the establishment (not just by an individual connected with it), payment of wages through the establishment, and integration into its workforce. The applicant had no wage slips, bank salary credits, leave record or statutory registrations. His attendance and salary documents were disputed, illegible photocopies without clear institutional markings, and the hospital denied the ID cards. On the other side, the hospital's accountant produced payroll records for relevant months, paid by bank transfer, cheque and cash, in which the applicant's name did not appear. The Court found the hospital's explanation, that a doctor kept a personal driver separate from the hospital payroll, plausible.

Grievance notice. The two notices relied on demanded salary, gratuity, EOBI registration and other dues. They did not challenge the termination or seek reinstatement. The Court held that they were recovery notices, not grievance notices within section 34. A valid grievance notice is a condition precedent, and the defect cannot be cured later.

Outcome

The Court found that employment with the hospital and termination by it were not proved, and that the application was not maintainable for want of a valid grievance notice. The grievance application was dismissed.

Why it matters

For employers, the case shows the weight given to complete, consistent payroll records. For workers, it shows two things. A claim of employment needs some reliable documentary trail. And a grievance notice under section 34 must specifically challenge the termination and ask for reinstatement; a demand for dues alone is not enough.