Find a Lawyer

Appeals Nos. KAR‑131 and 139 of 1978, decided on 28th January 1979.

‑‑Ss. 34. 36 & 38 (3)‑Practice and procedure‑Interim injunc tion‑Grant of‑Case hinging upon evidence yet to be recorded -Stage, held, premature to grant interim relief‑Appellate Tribunal vacating order of interim injunction of Labour Court restraining employer from retrenching workers pending disposal of main application of workers' Union under S. 34 challenging retrenchment as violative of settlement.

Ch. Rashid Ahmad for Appellant.

Rafat Usmani for Respondent.

These are cross‑appeals against the order of the Sind Labour Court No. 5, Karachi partly allowing and partly dismissing the application made by the Union for interim injunction.

2. National Construction Company had employed certain workers at Juna Bunder Joint Venture engaged in the construction work. The Company had several Projects and had employed workers in the various Projects. It is the case of the Company that the construction work in which the aggrieved workers had been employed was completed and, therefore, they were retrenched. On the other hand, it was the case of the Union that there was a settlement where by clause 1, it was provided that the retrenched workers in one Venture would be employed in the other Venture of the Company and this settlement was being violated as the retrenchment was threatend and the workers were not being employed in the other Ventures which had been carried on by the Company. Consequently, the Union made an application under section 34 of the I.R.O. 1969, to the Labour Court for employment of the workers in the other Venture. Simultaneously an application for Interim injunction was made. restraining the Company from retrenching the workers.

3. The application was opposed and it was pleaded that the workers had already been retrenched and letter of termination of the employees was affixed on the Notice Board and this was within the knowledge of the workers whose services had been termi nated on account of the completion of the Venture in which they were employed.

4. The learned Presiding Officer, on hearing the arguments came to the conclusion that several workers had been served with the letters of termination and 38 workers had refused to accept the termination letters and, therefore, the application for interim injunction with regard to them had become infructuous. But, the remaining 8 workers had neither been served with the letters of termination nor they had a chance to know the affixation of the letters of termination on the Notice Board and, therefore, they continued to be on the Roll of the Company and the plea of the Company that there was no vacancy in other Ventures depended on the evidence which was yet to be recorded and, therefore, the Company was restrained from retrenching the workers pending the disposal of the main application.

5. Aggrieved by this, both the parties had filed the cross‑appeals. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and I am of the view that the application for interim relief with regard to 38 workers was rightly rejected but the learned Presiding Officer erred in allowing interim relief to the remaining 8 workers for the simple reason that there was no evidence to show that there was any vacancy in other Venture or some persons had been employed in other Ventures after the termination of the services of the workers in the Project which was completed. The entire case hinges upon the evidence which has yet to be recorded. Consequently, it was premature to grant interim relief.

In the circumstances, I dismiss the appeal filed by the Union and allow the appeal filed by the Company with the observations that the maim application be disposed of on merits after recording evidence which may be tendered by the parties and in case, it is found that there were vacancies in other Ventures at the time when the aforesaid workers had been retrenched or some persons had been employed subsequently, the aggrieved workers shall be ordered to be reinstated and re‑employed in other Venture with full back benefits as if they haft continued to remain in the employment of the Company.

A.E

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.