1988 PLP 976 (PLC(CS))

Date of hearing: 20th March, 1988. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 17-2-1988 passed by the Sind Labour Court No. III at Karachi who had allowed all the 9 separate grievance petitions filed by the respondents under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969, directing their reinstatement in service with full back benefits.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case were that all the nine respondents claimed to have been permanently working in the appellant mills for different periods ranging from ten to fourteen years and on 17-9-1984, their services were abruptly terminated by the appellant mills, but, vide order of the learned Labour Court No. 111, Karachi, dated 27-7-1986, they were ordered to be reinstated in service and as they were not allowed to resume their respective duties by the appellant mills, therefore, the respondents claimed to have sent registered A/D post letters, dated 6-8-1986, 16-8-1986 and 4-1-1987 and thereafter, the respondents received letters in January 1987 calling them to join the service. Further, the claim of the respondents was that when on joining their duties with the appellant mills, they had demanded their wages with effect from 6-8-1986 till 6-1-1987, the management became annoyed- and so their services were terminated vide letter, dated 31-1-1987. Thus, being aggrieved all the respondents had served grievance notice followed by their respective present grievance petitions under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969.

3. The appellant mills had resisted all these petitions on the ground that each respondent had failed to join his respective post in view of the orders of the learned Labour Court, even after lapse of a period of about 6 months therefore they were not under any obligation to make the payments of wages for the said period of about 6 months as the respondent had themselves remained absent from their duties. It was, therefore, the claim of the appellants mills that in view of these facts, the termination of services of all the present 9 respondents was bona fide and hence, they could not maintain their grievance petitions under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969, before the learned Labour Court which were liable to be dismissed.

4. Both the parties led their respective evidence in support of their cases before the learned Labour Court and they were duly cross-examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court has passed the common impugned order, hence, the present joint appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. Khursheed Ahmad Siddiqui, the learned representative for the appellant mills and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. At the very outset, I would observe here that it is an admitted position on record that at the time of reinstatement of these respondents in view of the Labour Court's order, all of them were put on their original posts, which fact clearly belies the pica of the appellant mills that the Weaving Department in which the respondents were previously working had been closed down, therefore, the appellant mills have no case in support of their contention. Further, it is also an established fact on record that at the time of filing the reply statement before the learned Labour Court it was not pleaded by them that the Weaving Department had been closed down and it was not possible for them to keep the present respondents in their service. In view of this admitted position, I would hold that the termination of the services of the present 9 respondents on the ground of closure of the Weaving Department at the belated stage, cannot be sustained, hence, it is set aside and the learned Labour Court was quite correct in passing the impugned order and it need not to be interfered with. The impugned order quite correct, well-reasoned and in accordance with the law.

6. For the reasons discussed by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the Impugned order and would maintain the same. The present appeal is according dismissed in limine. A.E./1278/Lb. S. Appeal dismissed.