1976 PLP 348 (PLC)

Re-organisation-Retrenchment-One Section of mills closed down due to recession in business-Surplus workmen absorbed temporarily on ad hoc basis in other Sections to save them from retrenchment

Claim of surplus workmen for being made permanent in new jobs due to having worked for more than 9 months, in circumstances, rejected. M. Bilal for Appellant. Abdul Rashid for Respondent. This is as appeal preferred against an order dated 28-4-1975 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Junior Labour Court, Rawalpindi, on a petition of the respondent under section 25-A. His petition was accepted, hence this appeal.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the record of the Junior Labour Court as well as the impugned order.

3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that respondent joined service of the appellant as a substitute Reeler on 28-1-1969. He was made Reeler on 8-6-1970 till 1973. When there was a recession in business, machines in the Reeling Section were gradually closed down as a result of which a large number of workers were rendered surplus (petitioner being one of them). Instead of retrenchment Management distributed the surplus workers to various departments on ad hoc basis in order to save them from non-employment. Petitioner was absorbed as a helper to hanks clerk where he is admittedly working since then. His grievance is that as he has worked for more than a year on a job which was likely so to last for 9 months, therefore he may be made permanent hanks clerk.

4. Contention of the appellant is that no doubt respondent is a permanent employee of the appellant concern in their Reeling Section. Though there is recession in business in that Section but Section itself has not been closed with the hope that the market position would improve and workers who are distributed to other departments would again be asked to start the Reeling Section. He has been placed as helper to hanks clerk on verbal orders. As per office record he belongs to the Reeling Section. There is only one post sanctioned for the hanks clerk. If he is given orders making permanent in the job of hanks clerk then the man who is posted against a sanctioned post and who is also permanent would have to be shunted out. Conditions of service are the same in both the Sections.

5. Respondent was never sent to his new job by written order record he is a permanent employee of the Reeling Section. Under the circumstances, employer cannot be compelled to sanction more than one post of hanks clerk. Respondent's fears that Reeling Section may not be permanently closed are without any foundation.

6. In that view of the matter, I set aside the order of the Junior Labour Court. It is not maintainable and accept the appeal.