1984 PLP 819 (PLC(CS))

Malik Mumtaz Akhtar for Respondents. Date of hearing : 4th October. 1982. As facts and law points involved in above‑captioned 9 appeals are the same and as they were after consolidation decided by a single judgment by the learned lower Court, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment. The brief facts are that the appellants were the employees of Sh. Fazal‑ur‑Rehman & Sons Ltd. The Mills was taken over by the Govern ment in December, 1977. The Government authorised respondent No. 1 to sell the Solvant Extraction Plant of the Mills whereupon respondent No. 1 entered into an agreement to sell the said Plant with Messrs Fatima Enter prises. Fazal Vegetable Ghee Mills Employees Union raised an industrial dispute. Relevant demand was that instead of selling Solvant Extraction Plant it be run through the year to produce more quantity of vegetable oil, The dispute was brought on 22nd November, 1979 and in its pendency the sale of the plant was completed on 13th December, 1979 by execution of a sale‑deed. The stipulation was that 140 workers on roil of the plant would stand transferred to Fatima Enterprises on same terms and conditions on which they had been serving under Fazal‑ur‑Rehman Mills respondent No. 1, The services of the appellants and some other workers were transferred to respondent No. 2 by respondent No.

1. Mr. Mohammad Saleem Lodhi .challenged the order of transfer of large number of employees as Secretary of the Union and other appellants brought individual grievance petitions. The petition brought by Mohammad Saleem Lodhi, General Secretary has been dismissed on this ground also that he had no authority from the workers to bring the petition and no wrong having been done to the union the petitions could not be brought by the Secretary. It was also pleaded in the grievance petitions by all the appellants that without taking permission under section 47, I.R.O. the sale could not be effected. The plea also did not find favour with the learned lower Court. So far as vjolat:on of section 47 is concerned the decision of the learned lower Court is correct. No demand to prevent the sale of the plant could be raised as it was not covered by the definition of industrial dispute. This is noteworthy that in the demand it was said that service conditions of the workers were being changed. No demand was raised challenging the forthcoming transfer of the workers from respondent No. 1 to respondent No.

2. Dispute could be raised about the transfer but was not raised, However the mode of the transfer of the workers was not legal and justified. It was stipulated in the agreement to 'sell and the sale‑deed that 140 employees on roll of the Solvant Extraction Plant would be trans ferred. The learned lower Court has held rightly that none of the employees of the respondent was employed for a particular section or branch. This being so it was not proper to transfer those who were at the time of sale on the roll of the Solvant Plant. Admittedly, the working of the plant was not permanent but seasonal. Mover over, nothing can be A said what may happen with plant in future. If the plant happens to fail or is closed then the 140 persons transferred would succeed clearly because they by chance happened to be on the rolls of the plant at the time of its sale. Such a mode of transfer is quite against the sight of the said employees and against equity of natural justice. The proper thing was to invite option from all the employees of respondent No. 1 whenever they were working and firstly only those should have been transferred who opted for it. If by such a transfer quantity of 140 was not complete the junior most should have been transferred to meet the number. In this manner there could have been no grievance to any one. In the written statements filed by the respondent it was contended that no grievance notice was served but learned lower Court did not record any finding. While arguing the appeals no such point was argued before me by either of the parties which means that the respondent No. 1 is not particular about it. As a result of the observations made above I dismiss the appeals brought by Mr. Muhammad Saleem Lodhi, General Secretary of the Union but accepting the remaining appeals and setting aside the order of the lower Court and the order of transfer and termination of the remaining appellants direct respondent No. 1 to get option from the said appellants for being transferred to respondent No. 2 and if they do not opt then the junior most amongst all the employees existing on roll of the respondent No. 1 on the date of sale may be transferred to respondent No. 2 to complete the total number

140. However, if the parties agree to a mutual settlement or agreement the order will not stand in their way to settle the differences amicably. A. E. Appeal dismissed.