Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Appeal No. ( ) decided on 24th February, 1982.
‑‑‑S. 37‑‑Appeal against decision of Labour Court‑‑Question of fact‑ Cannot be raised for first time in appeal‑‑Termination due to retrenchment made after settlement with C.B.A.‑‑Termination Order challenged on plea that settlement was not legal for reason that its copy not sent to Conciliator or Government‑‑Such objection not raised in grievance petition so as to provide opportunity for employer to meet same‑‑Objection raised for first time in appeal in arguments‑‑Not allowed.
(b) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑
‑‑‑S.O. 12(1) & (3)‑‑Retrenchment‑‑Profit and loss statement showing that mills running in loss‑‑General retrenchment resorted to after settlement with C.B.A.‑‑Termination order, in circumstances, held, not exceptionable.
A.M. Khan for Appellant.
This appeal arises from the decision, dated 11‑1‑1982, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petition for reinstatement of the appellant was dismissed.
2. A general retrenchment was made in the respondent Mills, as a result of which a settlement arrived at between the management and the C.B.A. The copy of the statement is Exh. R‑2. As a result of the retrenchment the service of the appellant was terminated under Order XII, rules 1 and 3. Since general retrenchment was the contention of the respondent whereas the contention of the appellant was that he was victimised on account of union activities is not correct. There is no evidence on record in support of this contention of the appellant.
3. Learned representative for the appellant has argued that the settlement is not legal inasmuch as its copy was not sent to the Conciliator or the Government. Such objection was not raised in the grievance petition, therefore, no opportunity for the respondent to meet this objection. In appeal such a question of fact cannot be raised for the first time. The other objection of the representative is that the General Manager did not sign the settlement. This is actually wrong. At number two the signatures of C.M./Member Technical Board Lyallpur Cotton Mills appears. Not only this the signatures of President Technical Board Lyallpur Cotton Mills are on the document. On behalf of C.B.A. Mrs. Sabiha Shakeel President of the C.B.A. and Sadiq Shah. General Secretary of the C.B.A. signed the document. The settlement, is therefore, effective and binding. Even if it be said that there is defect in the settlement even otherwise the respondent was justified in terminating services of the appellant as retrenchment was inevitable. The profit and loss statement Exh. R‑1 shows that Mills was running at a loss at the relevant time. Not only the appellant, several other persons were retrenched. In view of the observation made above there cannot be any exception to the impugned order of the lower Court which is in these circumstances of the case just and proper. Grievance petition of the appellant was rightly dismissed. There is no force in the appeal which is dismissed in limine.
Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer