2000 PLP 661 (PLC)
SALAHUDDIN and 42 others Versus SINDH LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and 2 others
| Citation | 2000 PLP 661 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi High Court |
| Bench Members | Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, C. J. and Ghulam Rabbani, J |
| Parties | SALAHUDDIN and 42 others Versus SINDH LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and 2 others |
| Primary Law | JUDGMENT, Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 661 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: JUDGMENT, Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 661 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi High Court bench comprising: Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, C. J. and Ghulam Rabbani, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 661 (PLC) (SALAHUDDIN and 42 others Versus SINDH LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Faiz Ghanghro for Petitioners.
- Choudhry Rasheed Ahmed for Respondent No.3.
- Date of hearing: 18th November, 1999.
- As against above, Mr. Choudhry Rasheed Ahmed, learned counsel for respondent No-3 contends that irrespective of the aforesaid amendment, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the said case is applicable and that ratio of said case is that no employer shall close down the whole establishment without prior permission of Labour Court and that Court Permission might indeed be the last. step in the process of closing down or that an application in this behalf may be made by the employer simultaneously with any other step. In the instant case, as observed by learned Tribunal, the respondent's business mostly depended upon demand from USSR and after its disintegration, the business was adversely affected as such, the garment factory was closed down. The Tribunal has also observed that, under such circumstances, for the purpose of re-organization, the services of the workers could be terminated under Order 12 of the Standing Orders Ordinance on one month wages in lieu of notice and other dues. Learned Tribunal has also observed that mala fide on the part of respondent No.3 was not established.
- As against above, Mr. Choudhry Rasheed Ahmed, learned counsel for respondent No‑3 contends that irrespective of the aforesaid amendment, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the said case is applicable and that ratio of said case is that no employer shall close down the whole establishment without prior permission of Labour Court and that Court Permission might indeed be the last. step in the process of closing down or that an application in this behalf may be made by the employer simultaneously with any other step. In the instant case, as observed by learned Tribunal, the respondent's business mostly depended upon demand from USSR and after its disintegration, the business was adversely affected as such, the garment factory was closed down. The Tribunal has also observed that, under such circumstances, for the purpose of re‑organization, the services of the workers could be terminated under Order 12 of the Standing Orders Ordinance on one month wages in lieu of notice and other dues. Learned Tribunal has also observed that mala fide on the part of respondent No.3 was not established.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 25-A
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O.11-A
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199--Constitutional petition
Employer's business mostly depended upon demand from U.S.S.R. and after its disintegration, business of employer, having adversely affected, employer had to close down its factory
Employees whose services were terminated due to the said development, could not establish mala fide on part of employer
Seeking permission from Court to close the establishment no doubt was mandatory as its object was to safeguard the interest of employees and also to ensure that running establishments were not closed down without justification but business of the employer was closed due to changed circumstances at international level
Employer in absence of any mala fide was justified to close down his factory in circumstances. South British Insurance Employees v. The Sindh Labour Court No.4 and others 1975 SCMR 49 ref. NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, C.J.
The petitioners have impugned the order dated 29-11-1995 of Presiding Officer, II Sindh Labour Court, Karachi and the order dated 4-2-1996 of Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, whereby learned Tribunal maintained the order of Labour Court, dismissing the applications filed under Section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969. The facts relevant for decision of this petition are as follows: The petitioners were the employees of respondent No.3, Mercury Garment Industries and on 28-8-1988 the services of 226 employees were terminated by said respondent on the ground of re-organization/economic reasons. Only 26 employees of Management Staff were retained. The petitioners challenged their termination before the Labour Court, but without success. Thereafter, the matter was taken up to the Labour Appellate Tribunal, which by order dated 4-2-1996, dismissed the appeal preferred against the order of Labour Court. While dismissing the appeal, the learned Tribunal relied upon the case of South British Insurance Employees v. The Sindh Labour Court No.4 and others, 1975 SCMR
49. The respondent No.3 had filed Application No.1 of 1992 under Standing Order 11-A of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 for grant of permission to close down the establishment, which was, allowed by IVth Sindh. Labour Court vide order dated 23-1-1996. The only point for consideration is that, whether Standing Order 11-A was rightly interpreted by the learned Tribunal. Standing Order 11-A is as follows: "II-A. Closure of establishment.--Notwithstanding anything contained in Standing Order 11, no employer shall terminate the employment of more than 50 per cent. of the workmen or close down the whole of the establishment without prior permission of the Labour Court in this behalf, except in the event of fire, catastrophe, stoppage of power supply, epidemics or civil commotion." In the case of South British Insurance Employees' Union, the Hob'ble Supreme Court, about Standing Order II-A observed as follows: "It will be seen that the Standing Order does not stipulate that the application to the Labour Court for permission to close down should be the first step in the process. All that it prescribes is that no employer shall close down the whole of its establishment without prior permission of the Labour Court in this behalf. Thus the Labour Court's permission might indeed be. the last step in the process of closing down, or an application in this behalf may be made by the employer simultaneously with any other step that he may have to take to wind up his business and close down his establishment. The Standing Order does not appear to us to spell out any sequence in which the various steps for closing down an establishment have to be taken by an employer, and, therefore, no question arises of the respondent having committed any illegality in this behalf." Mr. Faiz Ghanghro, learned counsel for the petitioners, states that Standing Order 11-A was amended by the Labour Laws (Amendment) Act, XI of 1976, whereby the following was added in the said order: "terminate the employment of more than 50 per cent of the workmen." Learned counsel argued that since the amendment was introduced in the year 1976, therefore, the aforesaid reported case viz. South British Insurance Employees' Union is not attracted to the circumstances of this case. According to him; termination of 226 employees on 28-8-1998 was illegal and in violation of Standing Order 11-A. It is true that application for closing down the establishment should have been presented within a reasonable time and in this particular case, services were terminated on 28-8-1988 and the application under Standing Order 11-A was filed in the year 1992, the fact, however, remains that the order dated 23-1-1996 of Labour Court was never challenged. It therefore, attained finality in the year 1996. Seeking permission from Court as above is mandatory. Its object is primarily to saveguard the interest of workmen and also to ensure that without justification running establishments are not closed down. In the instant case due to changed circumstances at in of the respondent No.3 abruptly relapsed as such the establishment was closed down. Since, there was no mala fide and the order dated 23-1-1996 was not impugned, the petition is not maintainable. On 18-11-1999, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, we had dismissed the petition in limine and these are reasons for the same. H.B.T./S-53/K ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioners were the employees of respondent No.3, Mercury Garment Industries and on 28‑8‑1988 the services of 226 employees were terminated by said respondent on the ground of re‑organization/economic reasons. Only 26 employees of Management Staff were retained. The petitioners challenged their termination before the Labour Court, but without success. Thereafter, the matter was taken up to the Labour Appellate Tribunal, which by order dated 4‑2‑1996, dismissed the appeal preferred against the order of Labour Court. While dismissing the appeal, the learned Tribunal relied upon the case of South British Insurance Employees v. The Sindh Labour Court No.4 and others, 1975 SCMR
49. The respondent No.3 had filed Application No.1 of 1992 under Standing Order 11‑A of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 for grant of permission to close down the establishment, which was, allowed by IVth Sindh. Labour Court vide order dated 23‑1‑1996. The only point for consideration is that, whether Standing Order 11‑A was rightly interpreted by the learned Tribunal. Standing Order 11‑A is as follows: "II‑A. Closure of establishment.‑‑Notwithstanding anything contained in Standing Order 11, no employer shall terminate the employment of more than 50 per cent. of the workmen or close down the whole of the establishment without prior permission of the Labour Court in this behalf, except in the event of fire, catastrophe, stoppage of power supply, epidemics or civil commotion." In the case of South British Insurance Employees' Union, the Hob'ble Supreme Court, about Standing Order II‑A observed as follows: "It will be seen that the Standing Order does not stipulate that the application to the Labour Court for permission to close down should be the first step in the process. All that it prescribes is that no employer shall close down the whole of its establishment without prior permission of the Labour Court in this behalf. Thus the Labour Court's permission might indeed be. the last step in the process of closing down, or an application in this behalf may be made by the employer simultaneously with any other step that he may have to take to wind up his business and close down his establishment. The Standing Order does not appear to us to spell out any sequence in which the various steps for closing down an establishment have to be taken by an employer, and, therefore, no question arises of the respondent having committed any illegality in this behalf." Mr. Faiz Ghanghro, learned counsel for the petitioners, states that Standing Order 11‑A was amended by the Labour Laws (Amendment) Act, XI of 1976, whereby the following was added in the said order: "terminate the employment of more than 50 per cent of the workmen." Learned counsel argued that since the amendment was introduced in the year 1976, therefore, the aforesaid reported case viz. South British Insurance Employees' Union is not attracted to the circumstances of this case. According to him; termination of 226 employees on 28‑8‑1998 was illegal and in violation of Standing Order 11‑A. As against above, Mr. Choudhry Rasheed Ahmed, learned counsel for respondent No‑3 contends that irrespective of the aforesaid amendment, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the said case is applicable and that ratio of said case is that no employer shall close down the whole establishment without prior permission of Labour Court and that Court Permission might indeed be the last. step in the process of closing down or that an application in this behalf may be made by the employer simultaneously with any other step. In the instant case, as observed by learned Tribunal, the respondent's business mostly depended upon demand from USSR and after its disintegration, the business was adversely affected as such, the garment factory was closed down. The Tribunal has also observed that, under such circumstances, for the purpose of re‑organization, the services of the workers could be terminated under Order 12 of the Standing Orders Ordinance on one month wages in lieu of notice and other dues. Learned Tribunal has also observed that mala fide on the part of respondent No.3 was not established. It is true that application for closing down the establishment should have been presented within a reasonable time and in this particular case, services were terminated on 28‑8‑1988 and the application under Standing Order 11‑A was filed in the year 1992, the fact, however, remains that the order dated 23‑1‑1996 of Labour Court was never challenged. It therefore, attained finality in the year 1996. Seeking permission from Court as above is mandatory. Its object is primarily to saveguard the interest of workmen and also to ensure that without justification running establishments are not closed down. In the instant case due to changed circumstances at in of the respondent No.3 abruptly relapsed as such the establishment was closed down. Since, there was no mala fide and the order dated 23‑1‑1996 was not impugned, the petition is not maintainable. On 18‑11‑1999, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, we had dismissed the petition in limine and these are reasons for the same. H.B.T./S‑53/K ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.