Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Appeals Nos. KAR‑268 to 273 of 1976, heard on 16th November 1976.
‑‑ S. 25‑A read with West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial ‑Employment (Standing Order) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. O. ‑12(3) Factory employing 21 workers ‑‑laervices of permanent workers, held, could not be terminated without stating reasons‑Order terminating services of appellants not giving any reasons ‑Order, held, void.
----S. 25‑A‑Dismissal‑Employer pleading factory to have been closed‑Nothing on record to substantiate contention‑Matter needing evidence, plea, held, could be raised before Labour Court‑Appeals allowed but case remanded for disposal on merits.
Mohammad Ahmed for Appellants.
Syed Zamirul Hasan for Respondent.
These are 6 appeals against the order of the Labour Court dismissing the applications filed under section 25‑A, I. R. O. Since common question is involved, these appeals have been consolidated.
2. The appellants were in the service of the respondent. Their services were terminated by a simple order that their services were no longer required and one month pay in lieu of the notice was given. The appellants were not satisfied with the termination of their services. They served grievance notices upon the respondent and then approached the Labour Court for redress of their grievances.
3. The applications were resisted. It was pleaded that the respondent's concern was a Weaving Factory and since less than 20 workmen were employed the Standing Orders Ordinance was not applicable.
4. The Labour Court on the assessment of the evidence came to the conclusion that according to the evidence on record only 14 workmen were employed and on the basis of this conclusion the objection raised on behalf of the respondent was upheld and the applications were dismissed. Aggrieved by this, the present appeals bad been filed.
5. On perusel of the record and proceeding and hearing the arguments I am of the view that the Labour Court clearly erred in coming to the conclusion that less than 20 workers were employed in the factory of the respondent. According to the evidence available on record there were 21 workmen working in the factory. In this connection reference be made to the evidence of Waqar Yousuf who was the proprietor of the factory. He admitted in the cross‑examination that there were 14 Weavers working in the factory and Abdul Malik was a Kooli in the factory. He further admitted that Sultan Mahmood and Haq Nawaz were Pirns Winders, Abdul Rashid was a Munahi and Mohiuddin was a Jobber. This total number comes to 19. Of course, be stated that Mohiuddin had resigned at the time when the services of the applicants were terminated, but in my view he had' made a false statement in view of very fact that ac cording to him no, Chowkidar was employed in the factory, although it was admitted by Mohammad Azeem, Labour Officer of the Government of Sind that two Chowkidars were found working in the factory. Consequently, the total number of workmen in the factory was 21. That being so, the Standing Orders Ordinance was applicable and according to Standing Order 12 (3) the service could not be terminated without stating reason but in the present cases no reason was given and, therefore, the order is void on the very face of it.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, urged before me that Mr. Mohammad Azeem Awan and Barkat Ahmed, Labour Officers of the Government of Sind had inspected the factory and had found the number of the workers working in the factory less than 20. It seems that their reference to the workers meant the Weavers as was stated by the proprietor of the factory and not all the workmen working there as already pointed out.
7. It was further urged on behalf of the respondent that the factory was closed. So far there is nothing on record to support this contention. This needs evidence. The plea can be raised in the Labour Court in view of the order which I propose to pass.
8. In the result I allow all these appeals and set aside the impugned, order passed by the Labour Court. The case is remanded to the Labour Court for disposal on merits in accordance with law.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer