Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑39 of 1983, heard on 13th February, 1983.

Industrial dispute‑--

--‑‑Termination of service‑Section of Mills in which workman employed closed‑Services terminated with one month's notice -Order of termination in circumstances, held, not exceptionable‑ Order of Labour Court rejecting grievance petition against such termination order upheld by Appellate Tribunal‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 37.

Ali Muhammad for Appellant.

Date of hearing : 13th February, 1983.

The services of the appellant, who was employed as a clipper in the respondent mills, were terminated, vide discharge order, dated 5th April 1982 on the ground that there was no work of clipper in the respondent mills and be had become excess to the requirements of the respondent mills. The appellant challenged the orders of his discharge before the learned Labour Court on two grounds, firstly, that the discharge order was male fide as it has actuated by a desire on the part of the manage ment to punish him for helping to form a rival workers' union to the union supported by the management, and secondly, that the rule of 'last in first to go out' was not followed by the management, as juniors in the Clipping Section were retained when his services were terminated. The learned Labour Court has repelled both these contentions and has held that there was no evidence to substantiate the allegations of mala fides and that the appellant had failed to establish that any workman junior to him was retained in the Clipping department when the services of the appellant were terminated.

2. Mr. Ali Ahmad, the learned counsel for the appellant, has assailed the impugned decision of the learned Labour Court and the order of dis charge of the appellant on a fresh ground. He contended that in fact the appellant was a workman of the Weaving Department and since that department was not closed and further as the appellant was not the junior most workman in the said Department, his discharge from service was illegal. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the photo copy of the identity card of the appellant issued to him by the respondent mills. The said identity card indicates that the Token No. of the appellant was W. B.‑78. It was submitted by Mr. Ali Ahmad that the letter W stood for Weaving ‑ Department. It has, however, been explained by witness Amjad Hussain, Manager of the respondent mills, that the letters "W. B." in the identity card of the appellant stand for Weaving and Clipping in B. Department but the appellant was employed as a Clipper in the Clipping section. The appellant himself in his grie vance notice, dated 12th April, 1982, served upon the respondent establish ment, has stated that he was their "permanent worker having served in the Clipping Department of your establishment for about two years". In view of this admission of the appellant in his grievance notice hes cannot be heard to say that he was not employed in the Clipping Section. Since it is not disputed by the appellant that the Clipping Section in the respondent mills was closed down the services of the appellant were rightly' terminated by the discharge order, dated 5th April, 1982 with one month's notice pay.

3. As no other ground was urged by Mr. Ali Ahmad in support of the appeal, the appeal is dismissed in limine.

A. E. Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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