1992 PLP 52 (PLC)

MAMOON QAZI, J.

The petitioners have called in question the two orders passed by learned IIIrd Labour Court Karachi and the learned Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, dated 28-4-1986 and 25-1-1987 respectively. It may be pointed out that the services of the petitioners had been terminated by respondent No.3 by way of retrenchment on account of the closure of half of the looms. The respondent gives explicit reasons for terminating the services of the petitioners which were that the existing looms in the Mills had become out dated and they required to be replaced with modern shuttleless looms. However, the petitioners were aggrieved by the termination of their services and they filed a grievance petition before the learned Labour Court which was dismissed vide its order dated 28-4-1986. The petitioners filed an appeal before the learned Appellate Tribunal but it appears that on the day when the appeal came up for hearing none appeared before the learned Tribunal on behalf of the appellants. However, the appeal was dismissed in limine by a short order, dated 25-1-1987 and subsequently reasons were recorded for the dismissal of the appeal by the learned Tribunal.

2. We have heard Mr. Mirza Mohammad Kazim, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Bilal Shaikh, Advocate holding brief for Mr. Mohammad Ahmed, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

3. It has firstly been contended by Mr. Mirza Mohammad Kazim that the learned Tribunal has dismissed the appeal in limine without applying its mind to the facts of the case. This argument appears to be absurd on the very face of it as detailed reasons have been given in the impugned decision by the learned Appellate Tribunal and the entire relevant evidence was taken into consideration by it.

4. So far as the case on merits is concerned, both the learned Labour Court and the learned Appellate Tribunal were not impressed by the case of the petitioners as they found that there were admissions made by the peti tioners' witness that the looms had become out-dated and half of them were not in operation since January, 1985. The learned Tribunals below were also impressed by the fact that many of the workers were being paid their salaries although the looms had remained idle. It also appears to have come to light during the cross-examination that for about six or seven months respondent A No.3 had been paying wages to the workers although the looms on which they were working were lying idle. However, when there was no possibility of the looms working again and the respondents were suffering financial loss they decided to retrench the workers including the petitioners. It further appears that as per admission of the petitioners' witness the relations between the management and the C.B.A. Union of the respondents' Mills had always remained cordial and the management had been providing maximum facilities to the workers in accordance with the provisions of the Labour Laws. Consequently, both the learned Tribunals below came to the conclusion that the grievance of the petitioners was not well-founded.

5. It may be pointed out that in the exercise. of the Constitutional jurisdiction, we cannot enter into assessment of evidence made by the learned Tribunals below. Since both the Tribunals on the basis of evidence have found I3 the petitioners' grievance as not sustainable, we find no reason to interfere with. the said impugned orders.

6. In the result, this petition is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. H.B.T./M/1456/K Petition dismissed.