1977 PLP 695 (PLC)

Syed Zamirul Hasan for Respondent. There are 6 appeals against the order of the Labour Court dismissing the applications filed under section 25‑A, I. R. O. Since common question is I involved, these appeals have been consolidated.

2. The appellants were in the service of the respondent. Their services were terminated by a simple order that their services were no longer required and one-month pay in lieu of the notice was given. The appellants were not satisfied with the termination of their services. They served grievance notices upon the respondent and then approached the Labour Court for redress of their grievances.

3. The applications were resisted. It was pleaded that the respondent's concern was a Weaving Factory and since less than 20 workmen were employed the Standing Orders Ordinance was not applicable.

4. The Labour Court on the assessment of the evidence came to the conclusion that according to evidence on record only 14 workmen were employed and on the basis of this conclusion the objection raised on behalf of the respondent was upheld and the applications were dismissed. Aggrieved by this, the present appeals had been filed.

5. On perusal of the record and proceeding and hearing the arguments I am of the view that the Labour Court clearly erred incoming to the conclusion that less than 20 workers were employed in the factory of the respondent. According to the evidence available on record there were 21 workmen working in the factory. In this connection reference be made to the evidence of Waqar Yousuf who was the proprietor of the factory, He admitted in the cross‑examination that there were 14 Workers working in the factory and Abdul Malik was a Kooli in the factory. He further admitted that sultan Mahmood and Haq Nawaz were Pirns Winders, Abdul Rashid was a Munshi and Mohiuddin was a Jobber. This total number comes to

19. Of course, he stated that Mohiuddin had resigned at the time when the services of the applicant were terminated, but in my view he had made a false statement in view of very fact that according to him no Chowkidar was employed in the factory, although it was admitted by Muhammad Azeem, Labour Officer of tae Government of Sind that two Chowkidars were found working in the factory. Consequently, the total number of workmen in the factory was

21. That being so, the Standing Order was applicable and according to Standing Order 12(3) the service would not be terminated without stating reasons but in the present cases no reason was given and, therefore, the order is void on the very face of it.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, urged before me that Mr. Muhammad Azeem Awan and Barkat Ahmed, Labour Offices of the Government of Sind bad inspected the factory and had found the members of the workers working in the factory less than

20. It seems that their reference to the workers meant the Weavers as was stated by the proprietor of the factory and not all the workmen working there as already pointed out.

7. It was further urged on behalf of the respondent that the factory was closed. So far there is nothing on record to support the contention. This reeds evidence. The plea can be raises in the Labour Court in view of the order which I propose to pass.

8. In the result I allow all these appeals and set aside the impugned order passed by the Labour Court. The case is remanded to the Labour Court for disposal on merits in accordance with law.