Find a Lawyer

Applications Nos. 53, 54, 255 and 258 of 1982, decided on 28th November, 1983.

West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑--

‑‑‑S.0.12‑‑Termination of employment due to less work‑‑Order challenged‑‑Allegations of victimization and anti‑trade union activities not established‑‑Factory legally closed down‑‑No fault found with order of termination‑‑Grievance petition dismissed.

Ibne ‑Ayub, Representative for Applicant.

Ali Amjad for Respondent.

The present applicants alongwith other ten applicants had filed such matters in Court No. IV, Karachi on 23‑12‑1981 which were admitted on 6‑1‑1982. Eight of these matters were disposed of by the said Court on 26‑9‑1982 and the remaining six matters were transferred to this Court. Two matters being Applications Nos. 56/82 and 57/82 filed by Saeed Mohammad and Mohammad Hanif, respectively, have been disposed of by this Court. The present four matters are sought to be disposed of by this order.

2. Briefly the facts are that the National Advertisers Limited, Karachi had secured an order on 26‑12‑1979, for the manufacture of sixty thousand sets of give‑aways of a special type. The payment for these special type brass give‑aways was to be made by the Saudis in U.S. Dollars. The total cost of these sixty thousand give‑aways was calculated in Pakistani rupees at rupees eighty‑one lacs, which was to be paid in installments, some of which were to be advance payments. The National Advertisers entrusted this work to Messrs Mushtaq & Sons, the respondents herein, who engaged labour for this purpose. It appears that the respondents manufactured thirty thousand sets of give‑aways and received payment therefore. However, for the balance of thirty thousand sets of give‑aways, certain problems arose as delay for indefinite periods occurred in the payment of advances for those number of sets. In consequence of this indefinite delay in the receipt of advance payments from Saudia through the National Advertisers Limited, the respondents laid off their workers by notice, dated 7‑8‑1981. The lay off was for a 'period of eleven days from 7‑8‑1981 to 17‑8‑1981. As even after the lay. off the expected advances were not received by the respondents for the balance of thirty thousand give‑aways to be manufactured by them, the respondents resorted to retrenchment and by notice, dated 12‑10‑1981, retrenched 14 workers. In the retrenchment notice served upon the workers concerned it was specifically stated that the retrenchment was being made on the principle of "first come last to go" The retrenchment notice further provided for one month's notice as provided under clause (1) of Standing Order 12 and also held out an assurance to the retrenched workers that they would be given first priority in employment under Standing Order 14 if the work re‑started and fresh recruitment is made.

3. The respondents contested the matter and filed their Reply Statement through their partner of the firm, Mr. M. Anwar Mushtaq, alleging therein that the management had declared lay off w.e.f. 7‑8‑1981 for 11 days due to lack of order from buyer and less work in hand. A notice to this effect was exhibited on the notice the same day. The complaint before National Industrial Relations Commission and the compromise petition were admitted while all other allegations with regard to anti‑trade union activities or victimization were stoutly denied. It was explained that the retrenchment notice was issued to less than 50 of total workers of the respondent‑factory strictly on the basis of "last come first go". The respondents had also taken the legal plea that the applications were not maintainable at law and are time‑barred. They had also alleged that the principles of estoppel and waiver were attracted.

4. The parties led evidence in all the four matters. By way of affidavits only in Case No.53/82 (Mohammad Umer v. M. Mushtaq & Sons). The respondent has been cross‑examined but in all the remaining matters the applicants did not attend the Court to examine the respondent. Hence in their matters the word of the respondent goes unchallenged.

5. The applicants have admitted in their cross‑examination on various dates when they were examined by this Court, in these petitions that the permission for closing down the factory was allowed to the respondent factory by Sind Labour Court No. IV, Karachi vide order dated 23‑8‑1982. This order has been produced in the present petitions as Exh.3/A. The applicants also admitted that this order Exh.3/A was not challenged by them by way of a revision. The applicants categorically stated before this Court that all the other workers have left the factory after receiving their legal dues except the petitioners.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that when the factory has been legally closed down the question of the re‑employment would not arise. It has been contended by the counsel for the respondents that the co‑workers who had filed petitions alongwith the present applicants had been disposed of by Sind Labour Court No. IV, Karachi on 26‑9‑1982. Against which appeal was filed by the workers which too was dismissed by the learned Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 14‑4‑1983.

7. I have gone through the order passed by my learned brother Mr. Rana Bhagwandas on 23‑8‑1982 whereby he had allowed the close down of the factory. I have also gone through his order dated 26‑9‑1982 which was challenged before the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and dismissed the appeal filed by the workers on 21‑4‑1983.

As already mentioned, the applicants have not come forward for cross‑examination nor have been able to establish their cases. They have not challenged the word of the respondent. The case of the present four applicants stands on the same footing as that of the other co‑workers namely Pervez Iqbal, Khan, Muhammad Mushtaq, Zafar Ahmed, Abdul Hamid, Dost Mohammad, Bondo Khan, Syed Usman and Mohammad Miskeen and I am in agreement with my learned brother that no fault can be found with the action of respondents in terminating the services of the workers. The present applicants have miserably failed to establish their cases hence grievance petitions of the present) petitioners merit no consideration and are dismissed, accordingly.

M. I.

Petition 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.