1996 PLP 262 (PLC)

S. 25‑A‑‑‑Transfer of employee‑‑‑Services of employee were transferred to other Mills by mutual consent and at the time of transfer Last Pay Certificate was issued to said employees showing continuity of terms and conditions of service and other allowances and facilities enjoyed by them‑‑‑After employees had taken over charge in transferee Mill and started working, they were told that their previous services in Mill from where they had been transferred would not be counted for the purpose of seniority and other condition‑‑Case of employees was one of transfer and not fresh appointment in the transferee Mill and terms and conditions of services of employees having remained the same according to Last Pay Certificate issued to employees at the time of their transfer in which facilities and allowances admissible to them were mentioned, such rights of employees could not be taken away by transferee Mill unilaterally without even informing them to their disadvantage‑‑‑Employees, thus were entitled to seniority and other benefits earned by them in Mill from where they were transferred and they could not be deprived of same by transferee Mill. Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui for Appellant. M.L. Shahani for Respondents. Date of heating: 14th December, 1995. Respondent Muhammad Azam Katper had initially joined Shahdadkot Textile Mills as an electrician on 12‑2‑1975. This Textile Mills worked as a Corporation under the Ministry of production in the same manner as Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation. By mutual consent the services of Muhammad Azam Katper were transferred to Pakistan Steel on 19‑6‑1989. The respondent was issued Last Pay Certificate showing that he had been paid up to 18‑6‑1989 and the rate at which he had been paid the various allowances, his leave balance, casual leave medical leave, earned leave and the date of his annual increment were all communicated by the Textile Mills to the Steel Mills. The liability for payment of gratuity etc. had also been taken up by the Steel Mills. The respondent was thus transferred from one mills to the other mills keeping in view the continuity of his terms and conditions of service. 2. Likewise in case, of Ali Akbar Narejo the transfer was also similar being exactly a case of transfer in continuity on the same terms and conditions. After these two respondents had taken over charge of Steel Mills and started working on 1st December, 1991 they were told that their previous service in the Textile Mills would not be counted for the purpose of seniority and other conditions. This was an order which worked to the disadvantage of both these respondents and this decision was taken unilaterally by the Steel Mills without even issuing notice to the two respondents. By this order the terms and conditions of the respondents which had already been settled were being altered to their disadvantage. They accordingly filed heir grievance petitions before the Fourth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi. The learned Labour Court held that these respondent‑workers were entitled to consolidated seniority and consequential benefits and their grievance petitions were accordingly allowed. Against these decisions Pakistan Steel Mills have preferred these appeals in respect of both the respondents. Since there are all the same issues of law and fact in both the appeals, they will be disposed of by this common order. 3. Admittedly the case of the respondent was one of transfer and not fresh appointment. They had not resigned from their jobs of the Textile Mills and they had not been appointed in the Steel Mills. As stated above the terms and conditions remained the same and the dates and other allowances admissible to them were mentioned in their Last Pay Certificates. The Steel Mills cannot therefore make up one fine morning and take away these rights of the workers without even informing them of the proposed order. Obviously the workers are entitled to seniority and other benefits earned by them in the Textile Mills ad they cannot be deprived of the same. There is no substance in these appeals by the Steel Mills which are accordingly dismissed and the orders of the lower Court are maintained. H.B.T./19/Lb.S ? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????Appeals dismissed.