1995 PLP 349 (PLC)

Appellants in person. Mian Abdul Latif for Respondent. Date of hearing: 13th October, 1987. The appeals captioned above emerge from the decisions dated 6‑6‑1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.5, Faisalabad whereby the grievance petitions of the appellants for their reinstatement have been dismissed.

2. The appellants were pills makers and their services were terminated on the plea that for the formation of pills machinery had been installed, therefore, their services were no longer required. The appellants challenged the order on the ground that the abolishing of their posts was wrong, that the application for registration of their union was pending but no permission was taken from the Registrar under section 8‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. To prove that the petition for registration was pending when the services of the appellants were terminated, P.W. 2 was examined who stated that application for registration was received on 28‑12‑1986 and certificate of registration was issued on 8‑2‑1987. In cross‑examination he deposed that on 9‑2‑1987 letter Exh. R‑1 was sent to the General Secretary but added he did not know when this letter was received by the management. Muhammad Aslam Postal Clerk, Zeenat Textile Mills was examined as P.W. 4 who deposed from the record brought by him that Letter No.471 dated 29‑12‑1986 addressed to Tariq Ashraf, Ashraf Laboratories, Faisalabad had not been delivered for the reason that the addressee had gone to Karachi. He further stated that another registered Letter No.636, dated 29‑12‑1986 was also addressed to Ashraf Laboratories which was delivered but he added that he could not say who received it. In cross‑examination he said that the postman can deliver such letters. He did not say when Letter No.636 was delivered P.W.5 Mr. Muhammad Javed deposed that on 29‑12‑1986 the postman had gone to the respondent factory to deliver the registered A.D. letter to Mr. Tariq Ashraf but the latter after opening the envelope returned the letter to the postman and that P.W. 1 endorsed a wrong report, that the addressee was not available. In rebuttal Mr. Tariq Ashraf, Managing Director came in the witness‑box and stated that no intimation by the registered letter about any, application for registration had come to him before the termination of the services of the appellants. He deposed that on 29‑12‑1986 no registered letter had come to him nor he had opened any such letter nor after reading it had returned it to any postman. He added that rather on the said date he was out of station. The postman was summoned but the learned counsel for the appellants made statement that he did not want to examine the said witness. Only the postman could prove whether he served any registered letter and if so on what date. The result is that the appellants failed to prove that intimation with regard to the fact that an application for registration of the union was pending before the Registrar was given to the management before their services were terminated. The statement of P.W. 5 that he had accompanied Fateh Muhammad for the delivery of the said registered letter is not believable. Usually the postmen tams the letters for delivery. If the postman lead been examined and he had deposed that the letter was delivered to Mr. Tariq Ashraf by him and that he had after reading it returned to him requesting that false report be made, it could be believed that the letter had been duly served. This is not denied that the respondent has installed machinery for the preparation of pills. Since machinery has been installed the services of the appellants who used to prepare the pills by hands were no longer required and they were rightly terminated from service.

3. As a result both the appeals fail and are dismissed. A.E./467/Lb. P Appeals dismissed.