Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. RI‑35 of 1981/Pb., decided on 25th October, 1982.

‑‑S.O. 13‑Retrechment‑Establishment facing losses‑Retrenchment found justified‑Neither a junior retained nor fresh appoint ment made‑Order of Labour Court awarding re‑instatement with back benefits to retrenched worker, in circumstances, set aside by Appellate Tribunal‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38(3).

Ch. Sadiq Hussain for Appellant.

M. K. Khan for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 11^th October, 1982.

This appeal is directed against the decision, dated 4th January, 1981 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi, whereby the respondent was directed to be re‑instated in service with back benefits.

2. The services of the respondent were terminated on the ground of reorganization and retrenchment. The grounds of attack of the respon dent were that there was no justification for retrenchment and that his juniors were retained in service: One Muhammad Din, Polishman, was also retrenched and a copy of reorganization scheme has been produced in that case as Exh. R‑1. No copy of it has been brought on the present file. The said document shows losses. The stand taken by the respon dent was not that he was victimized. In the petition he says that termina tion is due to disliking, but in his statement he has not said anything. Not only the respondent but others have also been removed, so no question of disliking arises. The respondent admitted in cross‑examina tion that there were in all four blacksmiths out of whom Muhammad Miskeen died and remaining two namely Raja Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Azad were senior to him and they are working. He also says that in his place none has been employed. It is thus clear that no junior of the respondent has been retained. Since no one else has been appointed in place of the respondent, it is manifest that there is no need of any more blacksmith. If the respondent had been the only blacksmith, it could be doubted that his termination was not on account of retrenchment, unless the appellant had shown that no blacksmith was in future required. Learned counsel for the respondent .has argued that Exh‑R 1 is dated 30th September, 1979, where the services of the respondent were terminated on 27th September, 1978 when yet it was not known if the mills was running at a loss. This argument is not forceful. This is not correct that losses came to the knowledge of the employer on the preparation of Exh. R‑1. The difference is of only three days. Exh. R‑1 would not have been completed in a day. From the data of proposed losses, Exh. R‑I was prepared. So during the preparation of Exh. R‑1 it could come to the knowledge of the employer that the mills was running at a loss. In the other appeal Kohinoor Textile Mills Limited v. Muhammad Din' in which reports of account had been produced, 1 have held that there were losses and thus there was justification for retrenchment, so in the present case contradictory view cannot be taken. I, there fore; hold that the appellant succeeded in making out a case of retrench ment. I do not find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the service of grievance notice has not been proved. Signa tures of some officer appear on the copy of notice but through mistake some different officer was stated by the respondent. At the time the petition was brought still there was time to give grievance notice, so if in reality grievance notice had not been given upto 6th November, 1979 which is the date of presentation of grievance petition, the learned counsel for the respondent would have advised the respondent to give grievance notice, first and then being petition 25‑A.

3. As upshot of the observations made above, I accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court and c restoring the order of termination of service, dismiss the grievance petition of the respondent.

A. F. Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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