1995 PLP 506 (PLC)

(2) Whether the dismissal of applicant is illegal? (3) Whether the applicant is entitled to the relief claimed for? (4) Relief. Record reveals that statements of appellants Karim Khan and Umer Zaman were recorded. However, affidavit of Ehsan Shah was also placed on record. Whereas respondent in rebuttal produced Muhammad Yousuf Manager. During pendency of proceedings, towards 12‑6‑1994 respondent submitted an application seeking consolidation of these cases. Counsel for appellants expressed no objection. Accordingly trial Court on 16‑8‑1994 directed consolidation of these matters. Learned trial Court on considering evidence brought on record, dismissed the grievance petition vide order dated 14‑9‑1994 which has been challenged through present appeals. Mr. SA.M. Quadri learned counsel for appellant strenuously urged that action relating to retrenchment of appellants was mala fide being merely a device to control the labourers and curbing legitimate trade union activities. It was stressed hard that present arrangement for transporting officials/workers of the Company was fake besides being highly expensive for the Management which by itself reflects unfair labour practice of employer. On the other hand Mr. S.M. Yakub, Advocate opposing the appeal, contended that Management has legal right to regulate internal affairs, and select which section of the Company needs improvement or closure. According to him, employees cannot place any restriction on the discretion so exercised by specified authority of respective organisations. Learned counsel argued that Management on serious deliberation found, that transportation of workers/officials was more feasible and beneficial to company, therefore, retrenchment of appellant was justified and did not suffer from illegality or mala fide. I have carefully considered arguments advanced by learned counsel for parties in the light of available material. Before dilating upon contentions raised from both sides, it would be pertinent to mention, that respondent's Management in the notice dated 19‑9‑1993 regarding retrenchment of appellant had explained detailed circumstances necessitating winding up of transportation section. The appellants were specifically informed that transport contractor has assured to give priority and retain appellants in his employment on the terms and conditions of service fixed by him. It may be seen that in pursuance of said arrangement, the transport contractor, also gave notice to appellants on 20‑9‑1993 inviting them for joining his service by submitting requisite application before 26‑9‑1993. But offer was declined. However, thorough scrutiny of evidence, undisputedly discloses that (i) retrenchment was made keeping in view seniority list and requirements of law; (ii) no driver has been appointed by respondent company, subsequent to retrenchment of appellants, (iii) the workers and staff are being transported through vehicles of transport contractor; and (iv) appellants were offered employment by transport‑contractor, but they did not avail said opportunity. Therefore, question mainly arises whether respondent Organisation has rightly closed the transport section and directed retrenchment of appellants or their action was dishonest and mala fide. Broadly examining relevant provisions of. law, there appears no difficulty in holding that management of each organisation, has ample authority for regulating its affairs or changing its administrative set‑up, or re-organise its commercial emancipation; considering its resources and existing or future needs. Therefore, except factum of bona fide action, no other clog, limitation or restriction can be placed on the discretion to be exercised by concerned competent Authority of the or-ganisation. Section 13 of Industrial Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 recognises retrenchment and provides procedure for its implementation. For convenience, said provision is reproduced below:‑‑ "Section

13. Where any person is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of organisation the employer shall retrench such person who is last employed in the category." It is the case of respondent‑Company that after closing transport section, duties for carrying the workers/staff officials has been assigned to the Transport Contractor, to curtail extraordinary expenses being incurred for said purpose on account of private arrangement. Appellants however, attempted to challenge the propriety of action. Perusal of record reveals that appellants have examined Karim Khan and Umar Zaman besides, placing on record affidavit of Ehsan Shah, General Secretary Labour Union. Though vague assertions have been made about conduct of management by referring incidents of curbing trade union activities, suggesting that retrenchment was merely device to achieve said objective; yet no tangible proof appears on record for substantiating said accusations. On the contrary it is an admitted position that Transport Contractor who has been assigned this work is, carrying the workers and staff officials with effect from last week of September, 1993. Copies of contract executed by respondent with Transport Contractor have been placed on record but its validity was not effectively challenged. Nothing has been brought on record which may satisfactorily establish mala fides on the part of respondent in closing transport section of Gatron Industries Limited, Hub. Therefore, in my opinion the action of respondent does not suffer from any material defect or patent illegality. In this behalf I am also fortified by the observation in the following decided cases: (i) 1972 PLC 220 (Workers' Union v. Messrs Indus Chemicals Alkalis Ltd., Karachi). (ii) 1975 PLC 81 (Dost Muhammad Cotton Mills Ltd., Karachi v. Staff Union). (iii) 1980 PLC 1224 (P.IA. Shaver Poultry Breeding Farms Ltd., Karachi v. Rahim Bux and another). (iv) PLD 1987 SC 447 (Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others) (v) 1991 PLC 32 (Lyallpur Cotton Mills v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others). The trial Court has properly assessed the legal and factual aspects. Learned counsel for appellant has not been able to point out any misreading of evidence or impropriety in the impugned judgment on the basis of available material. Thus, I do not find any justification for interfering with the same. The appeals are consequently dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. H.B.T./34/Lb.Q Appeals dismissed.