1991 PLP 696 (PLC(CS))

Messrs Emesco Industries Ltd. v. S. Ifran Ahmed 1983 P L C 981 rel. Shafiq Qureshi for Appellant. Ali Amjad for Respondents. Date of hearing: 3rd September, 1990. This is an appeal against the order of the learned Sindh Labour Court No. I at Karachi, dated 14‑3‑1987, where by the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed. The appeal was disposed of by this Tribunal by order, dated 24‑3‑1988, but, the same was set aside by the Hon'ble High Court in exercise of its Writ Jurisdiction and the case was remanded back to this Tribunal for decision afresh on merits.

2. I have heard Mr. Shafiq Qureshi, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Ali Amjad, the learned Advocate for the respondents and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.

3. The admitted facts are that the appellant was a workman employed by the respondents whose services were terminated by the respondents on the ground that he had refused to vacate the quarter. He filed a grievance application before the learned Labour Court who dismissed the grievance application, but this order was set aside in appeal by this Tribunal, vide order, dated 13‑2‑1985 and the appellant was ordered to be reinstated. The appellant reported for duty and by letter, dated 26‑3‑1985, he was reinstated by the respondents with the direction to proceed on special leave with pay. On 6‑4‑1985, his services were terminated on the ground that the Section of the Mills in which he was working was given on contract and all the workers had taken full and final settlement and also further that he had crossed the age of superannuation of 60 years as he was at the age of 63 years. After service of the grievance notice upon the respondents, the appellant filed his grievance application which was dismissed.

4. The appellant had examined himself. He does not challenge the averments that his age was 63 years but only avers that there was no age limit in the mills. However, in the cross‑examination, the appellant had admitted that the retirement age in the respondent mills was 60 years. He had further admitted that prior to 1985, all the sections of Weaving Department have been leased out to a contractor. The respondents had examined their Personnel Manager, Mr. Sadat Beg. It appears that there was another case filed by the appellant under section 51 of the I.R.O., 1969, before the learned Labour Court and the cross‑examination of Mr. Sadat Beg in that case was considered as cross‑examination in the instant case also. He has asserted that the retirement age in the factory was 60 years and the appellant had crossed the age of 60 years, which fact appears to have been I admitted by the appellant himself.

5. The next objection raised by the appellant is that the respondent could not give the factory on contract and could not retrench him on that account. This objection, in fact is redundent in view of the fact that the appellant had already crossed the age of superannuation. However, it maybe pertinent to point out that this Tribunal had considered this question at length in the case of Messrs Emesco Industries Ltd. v. S. Irfan Ahmed, reported in 1983 P L C

981. After discussing extensive case‑laws this Tribunal came to the conclusion that termination of services of workers simpliciter on account of reorganisation including giving of contract of work to independent contractor was permissible. As pointed above, the appellant had himself admitted that the work has been given on contract and that he had crossed the age of 60 years. The order of termination shows explicit reasons for termination and is in conformity with Standing Order 12(3). As such, I see no substance in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. M.Y.H./1762/Lb. S Appeal dismissed.