1985 PLP 996 (PLC)

AJMAL MIAN, J.‑This petition is directed against the order, dated 5th November, 1979 passed by respondent No. 1 in Appeal No. KAR‑507/77, allowing the appeal filed by respondent No.

1. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that the petitioner was working as an operator on a Shell Cutting Machine in Printing Section of respondent No. 2 when his services were terminated by respondent No. 2's letter, dated 26th January, 1.976 on the ground of lack of demand of Allwin brand of cigarettes and financial stringency. The petitioner after serving a grievance notice filed an application under section 25‑A of the I. R. O. before the Iind Sind Labour Court on or about May, 1976. The above application was resisted by respondent and inter alia it was pleaded that the petitioner's services had become redundant on the closure of the said Shell Cutting Machine. However, the learned IInd Labour Court by its order, dated 3rd January, 1977 allowed the above application. Respondent No. 2 being aggrieved by the above order filed an appeal before respondent (Appeal No. KAR‑4/77), which was allowed on the ground that the aforesaid application filed by the petitioner under section 25‑A of the I. R. O. had been filed by him beyond the period of two months from the date of termination of his services and was hit by the provisions of sub section (6) of section 25‑A of I. R. O., but the case was remanded back to the Labour Court to consider whether the delay in filing of the above application could be condoned. The Sind Labour Court 11, by its order dated 26th February, 1978 condoned by the delay and allowed the petitioner's above application again. Respondent No. 2 being aggrieved by the above order filed aforesaid appeal (Appeal No. KAR‑507/77), which has been allowed on the ground that the petitioner's services were termi nated as the section of respondent No. 1's factory where the petitioner was working as an operator was closed‑down. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present petition.

2. In support of the above petition Mr. Ali Amjad, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that since the petitioner was working as an operator on a Machine he could have been transferred by respondent No. 2 from the Shell Cutting Machine to Cigarettes making machine as the job was interchangeable. Though the petitioner has not filed the copies of the evidence produced by the parties before the Court below, but we have allowed Mr. Ali Amjad, learned counsel for the petitioner to read the relevant evidence from his record. The section relating to the Shell Cutting Machine had been closed down by respondent No. 2 and the services of 14 workmen employed in the said section were terminated as was done in the case of the petitioner. The petitioner has brought evidence on record to indicate that in July, 1971 he was transferred for a period of 3 months from the Shell Cutting Machine to the Cigarettes‑making Department of respondent No. 2, Except the above piece of evidence there is no evidence to prove that the post or an operator on a Shell Cutting Machine was interchangeable with an operator working on a Cigarettes‑making machine. No instance of transfer of any other worker from one section to another section has been brought on record. The learned Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal as a finding of fact has recorded that the post of an operator was not interchangeable with the post of an operator on a Cigarettes‑making machine. It has also been concluded that since the section relating to Shell Cutting Machine was closed down, the petitioner's services were terminated in accordance with law. The above findings of facts are supported by evidence on record, and, therefore, cannot be interfered with in a Constitutional writ petition.

3. It was also contended by Mr. Ali Amjad that it has been proved that after the termination of the petitioner's services, respondent No. 2 had employed some persons in the Cigarettes‑making Department. On the other hand it was urged by Mr. Muhammad Ali Sayeed, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 that the operation of a Cigarettes‑making machine requires special skill and an operator of a Shell Cutting Machine cannot work on it. In our view, the above fact would have been, relevant if the petitioner would have established that the post of an operator on a Shell Cutting Machine was interchangeable with the pose of an operator on a Cigarettes‑making machine. The factum of posting of the petitioner for a short period of 3 months during the service period as an operator on a Shell Cutting Machine for more than a decade would not establish any right of the petitioner. It may be stated that the case of respondent No. 2 is that at no point of time the petitioner operated Cigarettes‑making machine.

4. For the aforesaid reasons the petition is dismissed, be no order as to costs. A. A. Petition dismissed.