P L D 1966 Supreme Court 765 (PLP)

(On appeal against the Award of the Industrial Court West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 13th November 1961, communicated on 18th December 1961, in Industrial Dispute No. 5 of 1960). (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 58(3) Leave to appeal to Supreme Court‑Granted to consider validity of Award of Industrial Court with respect to some of the demands only in an industrial dispute and refused with regard to the rest. In the petition for special leave to appeal validity of award was challenged by the Mill only with respect to Demands Nos, 2, 4, 7 and

16. Leave was, however, refused with respect to Demand No.

16. Thus three of the demands which were the subject- matter of appeal, were Demands Nos. 2, 4 and 7. (b) Industrial Disputes Ordinance (LVI of 1959), S. 12 Industrial dispute‑Award‑Re‑instatement awarded on ground of victimisation for Union activities‑Supreme Court declined to interfere with finding of victimisation, such finding not being perverse or patently wrong on evidence‑Whether re‑instatement, or compensation, proper relief‑No hard and fast rules can be laid down‑Worker's case undefended in Supreme Court‑Order of termination of service 10 years old‑Compensation (one year's pay with allowances) ordered‑Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (III of 1960), S. O.

12. From the workman's service record it appeared that till 13th January 1954, he had been fined on three occasions but even then he was promoted as a Mistry on 1st June 1954. In May 1955, he was merely censured for wrong stamping. In view of the above the Industrial Court came to the conclusion "that workman's services were dispensed with on account of the Union activities because he admittedly was a member of the Union." The above also found support from the fact that at the time of his termination of service, that is, on 21st October 1956, no notice as provided under Standing Order No. 12, was served on him. It was only after his representation, that is, on 7th November 1956, notice of discharge was served on him. In these circumstances it could not be said that the view taken by the Industrial Court was perverse or patently wrong. As the view taken by the Industrial Court on the evidence before it was a possible view, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the said findings. Whether the relief of re‑instatement or compensation for wrongful discharge would be appropriate remedy would, however, depend upon the circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this connection. The workman's services were terminated in 1956, that is, about 10 years ago. The Union or the workman had not appeared before the Supreme Court. It seemed that since then he had obtained employment elsewhere and was therefore, not keen to be re‑instated to his old post. In these circumstances it would not be to his or any one's interest to thrust him on a Company which was unwilling to employ him. Even if a direction was given for his re‑instatement, the Mill would be at liberty after complying with the order of re‑instatement to proceed against him in accordance with the mode provided by law. In view of the above facts and circumstances the ends of justice would be met by awarding compensation to him. Hence while setting aside the order of his re‑instatement, the Supreme Court directed that he should be paid a year's salary, that is, basic pay with all allowances, as compensation. Glaxo Laboratories (Pakistan) Limited v. Pakistan and others PLD 1962SC60ref. (c) Industrial Disputes Ordinance (LVI of 1959), S. 12

Industrial dispute‑Award‑Industrial Court's award directing installing of automatic time‑recording machines at gate of Mill Industrial Court's ad hoc conclusion, arrived at without considering financial implication, availability of machines and difficulty of foreign exchange‑Award set aside. Held, the contention on behalf of the Mill that the finding of the Industrial Court reinstalling of time‑recording machines was based upon no evidence; and that there was no justification for installation of such time‑recording watches at a very heavy expense was not without substance. The above order seemed to be without any reference to practical consideration as to the feasibility of installation of such a machine. Further, the Industrial Court had really come to an ad hoc conclusion without considering the financial implication, the availability of such a machine and the difficulty about the foreign exchange. The award under this demand was therefore arbitrary and based on no evidence and so must be set aside. (d) Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (III of 1960), S. O. 9‑Sick leave with or without pay within discretion of Management. Standing Order No. 9 clearly leaves the question of grant of sick leave with or without pay to the Management. Simply because the Mills may be in a position to bear this expense, that could not be a ground for granting sick leave with pay. Award of the Industrial Court given contrary to provisions of S. O. No. 9 was set aside. Hourly Paid Employees Association (Regd.), Rahimyar Khan v. Lever Brothers Pakistan Limited, Rahimyar Khan 1961 P L C 784 and Fazal Gulzar Textile Mills Workers' Union, Hyderabad v. Fazal Gulzar Textile Mills, Hyderabad 1961 P L C 1288 ref. Respondents: Ex parte.