1975 PLP 392 (SCMR)

Nasim Silk Industry v. Fifth Sind Labour Court P L J 1974 Kar. 80 ref. Talmiz S. Burney, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Vakii Ahmad Kidwal, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 13th March 1975. MUHAMWAD GUL., J.‑The petitioner‑firm is engaged in printing business and is also registered under the Factories Act, 1934. Respondent No. 3 was employed by the petitioner on 25‑12‑1470 as plate saz. However, by letter dated 31‑10‑1913, he was declared surplus and his service was terminated w. e. f. 1‑11‑

73. He filed an application under section 25‑A of the industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before the Janior Labour Court No. IV, Karachi, complaining that the order terminating his service was male fide and in viola tion to Standing Order 13 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 because he was office‑bearer of the Trade Union and his service has been terminated on that account. The petitioner's defence however, was that it had converted Litho‑Printing Press to Off‑set Printing Press which had rendered respondent No. 3 surplus to the business requirement of the petitioner and finally that the total number of its employees was 18 and therefore, respondent No. 3 could not invoke the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. On hearing the parties' evidence, the Junior Labour Court found, that the number of employees working in the petitioner's establishment were well over twenty, and that the respondent's service was terminated, because of his Trade Union activity, and therefore, directed re‑instatement of respondent No. 3 with full back‑benefits. The petitioner's appeal before the Second Sind Labour Court, Karachi having been dismissed on 19‑3‑1974, he filed writ 'petition No. 235 of 1974, which too was dismissed vide order dated 13‑9‑1974, Against which the petitioner now seeks leave to appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No. 3 did not give any notice informing the petitioner of his grievance as required by section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, which was a condition precedent for invoking the jurisdiction of the Junior Labour Court. In support of this argument, learned counsel relied on Nasim Silk Industry v. Fifth Sind Labour Court (P L J 1974 Kar. 80). The matter needs consideration. Accordingly, we grant leave, subject however, to the condition that the service of respondent No. 3, who has already been re‑instated shall not by terminated during the pendency of the appeal and that the petitioner shall may the respondent's costs irrespective of the result in the appeal. Security Rs. 1,

000. Leave granted.