Find a Lawyer

Application No.HYD-663 of 1971, heard on 13th November 1971.

S. 50‑Inter pretation of documents ‑ Terms of settlement: (1) Management agrees to take over department concerned from contractor; (ii) all terms and conditions of services and all existing facilities not covered by disputed agreement to remain unchanged‑Management, for purposes of retrenchment, held, could not ignore dates of employment of workers by Contractor Union or workmen, however, to prove to Management's satisfaction dates of employment ‑ West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordi nance (VI of 1968), S. O. 13 & 20.

The terms of settlement arrived at between the parties read as under:‑‑"(5) The Management agrees to take over the Finishing Department from the Contractor and manage themselves. The workers thus taken over will be confirmed on and from the same date. (10) All terms and conditions of services and all existing facilities not covered by this agreement will remain unchanged. The difficulty to Interpret the agreement arose because the Management retrenched certain workers without taking into con sideration, the date on which they were employed. The Manage ment took it that these workers were employed by it on one single day and therefore, the question of last‑come‑first‑go did not arise, as they were all employed on the same date. The Manage ment, therefore, thought that it had the option to choose any one. On the other hand, the Union's contention before the Manage ment was that though the workers, had been confirmed, when they were taken over from the contractor, but for the purposes of retrenchment the Management could not ignore the elate from which they were employed. Standing Order 20 casts certain responsibility on the employer even in respect of workmen, who are employed through the : Contractors. Under Standing Order 13 where any workman is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen, the employer shall retrench the workman who is the last person employed in that category. The Labour Officer of the Management who appears for the Management, contended that the Management had no means to find out as to when the workman taken over from the Contractor, was employed by the Contractor. On behalf of the workers it was contended that on a perusal of the terms it becomes clear that the Management could not ignore the terms and conditions of service that were applicable to the workmen while they were with the Contractor.

Held : The Management could not ignore the date when they were employed by the Contractor for the purposes of retrenchment. While interpreting these two terms It will be for the Union or for the workman to prove as to when he was employed by the Contractor to the satisfaction of the Management.

Wasiullah Qureshi for Applicant.

Abdul Lateef for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 13th November 1971.

This is an application under section 50 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called the Ordinance) for interpretation of certain terms of the Agreement entered into between the parties on the 6th of March 1968. The Indus Glass Work Labour Union (hereinafter called the Union), and the Management of the Indus Glass Work Limited (herein after called the Management), entered into an agreement on the 6th of March 1968, which was to come into force from 1st March 19oS. Terms Nos. 5 and 10 read together, according to Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi the learned Representative for the applicant, require interpretation. They read as under:‑--

"(5) The Management agrees to take over the Finishing Department from the Contractor and manage themselves. The workers thus taken over will be confirmed on and from the same date.

(10) All terms and conditions of services and all existing facilities not covered by this agreement will remain un changed."‑--

2. The difficulty to interpret the Agreement has arisen because the Management has retrenched certain workers without taking into consideration, according to Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi, the date ore which they were employed. The Management too it that these workers were employed by it from 1st March 1968, and therefore, the question of last‑come‑first‑go did not arise, as they were all employed on the same date. The Manage ment, therefore, thought that it had the option to choose any one of those employed on the 1st March 1968 and retrench B him. On the other hand, the Union's contention before the Management was though the workers had been confirmed from 1st March 1968, when they were taken over from the Contractor, but for the purposes of retrenchment the Management could not ignore the date from which they were employed.

3. It would be helpful, while interpreting the terms of the Agreement to refer to Standing Order 20 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordi nance, 1968, It reads as under :--

"The employer of the industrial" and commercial establishment shall personally be held responsible for the proper and faithful observance of the Standing Orders, whether or not the workmen of such establishment are employed through contractors."

Standing Order 20 costs certain responsibility on the employer even in respect of workmen, who are employed through the Contractors. Under Standing Order 13 where any workman is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen, the employer shall retrench the workman who is the last person employed in that category.

5. Mr. Abdul Lateef, the Labour Officer of the Management who appears for the Management, contended that the Manage meat had no means to find out as to‑when the workman taken over from the Contractor, was employed by the Contractor. Mr. Lateef contended that the Management took it that all the workmen were employed by it on the 1st of March 1968 and, therefore, it could choose the workmen, while applying the principle of retrenchment. On the other hand, Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi contends that the parties are bound by the terms of Agreement that had been arrived at between them. Reading Terms Nos. 5 and 10 together, Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi contended, it becomes clear that the Management could not ignore the terms and conditions of service‑ that were applicable to the workmen while they were with the Contractor. Reading Term Nos. 5 and 10 together, I would interpret that the Management could not ignore the date when they were employed by the Contractor for the purposes of retrenchment. While interpreting these two terms I may make it clear that it will be for the g Union or for the workmen to prove as to when he was employed by the Contractor to the satisfaction of the Management. I have made the above observation after hearing. Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi, who submitted that the workman or the Union would be able to prove, as to when a particular workman was employed, to the satisfaction of the Management.

Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.