1997 PLP 512 (PLC)

Faiz Ghanghro for Respondent. Date of hearing: 1st September, 1996. Respondent Mukhtar Hussain Bukhari was appointed Establishment Assistant on three months probation on a salary of Rs.1,620 per month on 7th September, 1988. After completion of the period of probation the salary was to be increased by gs.180 per month by the employers Ahmed Food Industries. The respondent continued in service until May 13, 1991 when he was served with an order terminating his service with immediate effect. He was to be paid one month salary in lieu of notice. The reason for termination mentioned in the order was that the post of Assistant in the Establishment Department had been abolished due to re‑organisation in the administrative set‑up.

2. The case of Mukhtar Hussain Bukhari is that after his termination another person by name Muhammad Nadeem Siddiqui was appointed and to show that he was not appointed on the swine job a difft;rent job description was given to him, while no job description had been given to respondent Mukhtar Hussain Bukhari. It is, therefore, contended that there was no re organisation and it was merely an excuse for termination his service and appointing another person in his place. That no resolution of the Board of Directors of Ahmed Food Industries has been produced on record to show. abolition of the post.

3. Mr.Gulzar Ahmed for Ahmed Food Industries has argued that three private companies Ahmed Karachi Halwa Merchant. Naurus (Private) Limited and Ahmed Food Industries were de‑registered and merged into one company Ahmed Food Industries on 17‑2‑1991 and computerized system of administration was introduced on 13‑5‑1991. That as a result of computerization the excess staff had to be discharged as their work became redundant. That as a result on 14‑5‑1991 the services of the respondent were terminated under Order 12 of the Standing Orders Ordinance and he was to be paid all his legal dues including one month's pay in lieu of notice. That this was all the re‑organisation which had taken place and this cause was mentioned in the termination order which was in writing. He has accordingly argued that the termination was legal and bona fide and there was no question of any mala fide termination of this one person alone. That as many as 8 persons were retrenched on account of computerization scheme. Mr. Gulzar Ahmed has lastly argued that on 31‑3‑1991 the respondent attained the age of 60 years and that was the age of his retirement from service in the factory and his date of discharge was 1‑1/2 months after the date of his superannuation. So, even otherwise he had no right to stay in the Department. That on retirement no pension would have been allowed to him but only Old‑Age Benefits. Contributions were being made for Employees Old‑Age Benefit Scheme. Mr. Gulzar Ahmed states that the respondent was being continued by mistake and after his termination the order of his retirement also been passed on 9‑9‑1992. So, he will get the benefits on his retirement. Mr. Gulzar Ahmed says that the company is prepared to allow the respondent the legal dues on termination plus the Old‑Age Benefits of retirement. That the order of retirement not having been challenged has attained finality. So, that even if the respondent has succeeded in getting the termination order settled he would have been legally retired. So, the question of reinstatement will not arise even in that case.

4. Mr. Faiz Ghangharo has on the other hand argued that the company had not framed any rules fixing the age of retirement of the employees at 60 years nor was any notice of retirement given to the respondent. The retirement would not, therefore, be legal and the respondent will have a right to continue for life or until he continues to be physically fit.

5. In any case it is the right of management to terminate the services of any employee if the termination is bona fide on account of any re organisation under Order 12 of the Standing Orders Ordinance. In this case the termination was due to amalgamation of the three companies and computerization. The termination of about 8 employees including the respondent would not, therefore, be considered to be mala fide. The ordinary age of retirement being 60 years the respondent cannot take the plea of non‑existence of the rules and his continuance in service for a lifetime.

6. I, therefore, find the termination order to be valid and legal and the plea of mala fides has not been strictly established as required by law.

7. The order of termination is accordingly maintained. The judgment of the Labour Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The back benefits if any deposited in this Tribunal may be returned to the company after settling the dues of the respondent in respect of termination as well as retirement. H .B.T./147/Lb.S Appeal allowed.