1994 PLP 633 (PLC)

(6) Please collect all your legal/termination dues including one month's wages in lieu of notice of termination of employment besides gratuity, provident fund etc., from the Accounts Department. (7) Special arrangements have been made for the retrenched workers including yourself to collect your legal dues from 10‑00 a.m. to 1‑00 p.m. and 2‑00 p.m. to 4‑00 p.m. on Sunday (10‑4‑1988) and Monday (11‑4‑1988). (8) A signed copy of this letter has already been sent at your residential address as available in your Personal File through Registered A.D. Yours faithfully, for SINDH ENGINEERING (PRIVATE) LTD. (Malik Ayazul Haque), Manager (Administration/Personnel):'

2. The petitioners had sent grievance notices and the same were replied to. As no satisfaction came their way they had filed grievance petition before the Labour Court.

3. It was inter alia alleged that the respondent‑Company had not suffered any setback in production or profits and its financial position did not warrant any reduction in its labour force. It had been resorted to simply to induct contractors. Even the retrenchment was based on the caprice and the whims of the establishment unmindful of the juniority and the seniority of the workers. Even the letters of retrenchment had not been received by all the workers; at any rate even those who had received got them late.

4. The petition came to be resisted by the respondent. It was alleged that out of the 239 retrenched workers 12 had collected their termination letter personally and quite a sizable number had settled their affairs later on, in full and final settlement of their claims. The allegations that any temporary workers had been engaged to replace the retrenched staff came to be refuted. The production and the earnings were furnished in detail but it is not necessary in the circumstances to enumerate them. The workmen had to be retrenched to salvage the company. It was also alleged that good care had been taken to retrench only the junior most from all the workmen in various sections of the company. The requirement of law had been fully observed and they were also informed that if there was a change of fortunes in .the near future, they will be recalled to work.

5. All the petitioners filed their affidavits, but‑by consent of the parties only Saeed Ahmed and Aleemullah Ansari were cross‑examined and their cross‑examination was to be treated as the cross‑examination on behalf of all the petitioners.

6. Syed Zubair Ahmed, Senior Manager, Finance, Muhammad Abdul Rahim, Senior Manager, Supply and Development and Malik Ayazul Haque, Senior Manager, Administration and Personnel appeared on behalf of the respondent.

7. The Labour Court for the reasons given by it found the material issues against the petitioners and dismissed the petition resulting in these appeals.

8. The case of the respondent is that the letters of the termination of the services of 239 workers of Karachi had been offered to them on the 6th of April. Out of them only 12 had accepted and the rest had declined. As a consequence a copy of the termination letter along with the names of the retrenched workers was put on the Notice Board on the same day. The following day letters were despatched to them by registered Post Acknowledgement Due. A Public Notice was also carried by the Daily Dawn dated the 8th of April. There was also publication made in the Business Recorder, Karachi.

9. Saeed Ahmed denies to have been present on duty on the 7th of April; the suggestion being given that under the circumstances there could be no question of the letter being offered to him and his having refused to accept the same. According to him he came to know about the letter Annexure‑A on the 18th. Aleemullah Ansari however admits to have received the letter by post.

10. It was contended by Mr. Ali Amjad learned counsel for the appellants that the address of a number of workers was not mentioned on the Acknowledgement Card at all. I do not think it would be necessary to examine this contention in minutes as the display of the names of the retrenched workers on the Notice Board, and the Public Notice in two newspapers widely read at Karachi are not in dispute. A news like this affecting almost every third worker in the Company would have spread like wild fire. It is also an admitted position that the union had filed an application under section 22‑A of the IRO against the respondent before the N.I.R.C. and there was an Interim Prohibitory Order on the 11th of April. The briefing of the counsel, the preparation of the application, and the accompanying papers and the presentation before the Court would have taken some time. Manifestly the appellants knew the decision taken about them by the management. The despatch of the letters is not denied. The Acknowledgement Due Card of Saeed Ahmed is on the record, and there are all the receipts. As held in 1980 CLC Karachi page 550 which is a judgment of a Division Bench of the Karachi High Court, the Postal Authorities being the agents of the addressee, the letters would be deemed to have been received by them, once the same had been posted.

11. The next question for consideration will be whether the reasons which led to the retrenchment will pass muster? .12. It is a trite preposition of law that an employer can always, terminate the services of a worker after giving a month's notice for any reason other than misconduct. The only fetters on his authority are sections 8(a) and 47 of IRO. Clauses 11 and 11‑A of the Standing Orders Ordinance and section 72 of the Provincial Employees' Social‑Security Ordinance, 1965.

13. The reasons for the retrenchment of the workers are explicitely to be found in the termination letters reproduced earlier. Even Saeed Ahmed and Aleemullah Ansari admit that they were getting 4 Bounses but at the material time it had been reduced to two and a half bounses. In the cross‑examination Saeed Ahmed stated that they were also getting Rs.300 to 400 under the settlement but in 1988 it was reduced to Rs.150 only. The financial affairs of the company and the stoppage of some of its activities has been detailed by Syed Zubair Ahmed and Muhammad Abdul R3heem. Syed Zubair Ahmed has produced the statement showing the sales and the production figures from the years 1981‑82 to 1988‑1989 based on the audited accounts which clearly proves adverse operating position at the relevant time. According to him the sale of the Toyota Products carried on by the respondent‑Company which formed 41% of the total sales in 1986‑87 and 46 % of the total sales in 1987‑88 was completely stopped in early 1989, and a new company by the name of Pakistan Motor Car Company Limited had taken over the work from the respondent Company. It also gives details about the fortune of the Suzuki Motor. There was the closure of the motor‑cycle section. According to him, but for the retrenchment of the workers the company would have suffered losses. The figures have been placed on the record.

14. It was held in M/s. Bayar Pharma Limited v. Mirza Hussain Akhtar 1981 PLC 24 that it was within the discretion of an employer to organise and arrange his business in the manner he considers best. The Courts as held in the Indus Glass Workers' Union v. Indus Glass Works Limited, Hyderabad 1962 PLC 280 cannot sit in appeal as retrenchment is an internal matter. All that is open to the Courts to see is, whether the workers have been victimized under the colourable exercise of authority. It was held in Pakistan Cable Employees' Union, Labour Welfare Centre and another v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal; Karachi and‑another 1981 PLC 594, that "if from the facts of the case, it seems that the action on the part of the employer was not prompted with the object to punish the employee, but it was necessitated in view of the circumstances of the case, the termination of service in such a case cannot be termed as a colourable exercise of the power." Nothing of this sort is discernible.

15. The office‑bearers of the company have not been touched. Nor is there anything to show that any senior worker has been retrenched and juniors have been retained. There was no mention of any unfair retrenchment in the grievance notice and even in the petition, it has been put in a very vague form. The only person about whom raw deal was specifically imputed was some Chishti Baba but Aleemullah Ansari could not say as to what was the date of his appointment. Nor could Saeed Ahmed improve upon this situation. There is no other person who has been even remotely mentioned. All that is said is that there are 41 categories in the company and it could not be said that the retrenchment has been affected according to their seniority in that particular section. Even here the details are lacking and as held by Mr. Justice Inamullah Khan is Gestetner Employees' Union v. Gestetner Pakistan Ltd. 1975 PLC 538 a general allegation is not enough. There should be a specific mention as to who was senior to whom. So it cannot, therefore, be said that the retrenchment was in breach of clause 13 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, either.

16. I am therefore, of the opinion that no interference is called for. I will therefore, uphold the order and dismiss the appeals. H.B.T./2315/Lb.S Appeals dismissed.