2006 PLC 459 (PLP)

IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.

By means of above noted petitions, leave to appeal has been sought against the judgment, dated 5-9-2005 passed by High Court of Sindh.

2. Precisely stating facts of the case are that respondent-Company submitted an application before the Sindh Labour Court and succeeded in obtaining order of retrenchment S.0.11-A of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Order) Ordinance, 1968. Concluding para. therefrom is reproduced hereinbelow:-- "As a result of findings on the above points, the applicant's company has succeeded in establishing that it has been suffering losses continuously because of the continuous reduction in its sale and other financial difficulties. Consequently, the applicant is allowed to close down its Empty Can Division, as prayed for by it, in order to save itself from sustaining future losses. The Point No.(iv) is accordingly decided in affirmative in favour of this applicant. "

3. After passing the above order, workers/petitioners agitated the matter before Labour Department who under the direction of Minister for Labour, carried out inspection of the respondent-Factory and vide letter, dated 23rd December, 1999 concluded that Tin Manufacturing Department was working with strength of 150 workers. Relevant contents of the letter for convenience are reproduced hereinbelow:-- "My findings as a result of negotiation are as follows:-- (a) Tin Manufacturing Department was working with strength of 150 workers whereas food processing department was closed. This is exactly the opposite of Labour Court Orders which had allowed only food processing department to work and has granted permission to close down Tin Manufacturing department (b) Tin manufacturing was in process however, the quantum of work was much less than capacity. (c) There was visible sign that the business is down and management is not receiving enough order for Tin manufacturing and apparently no orders at all for food processing. (d) Management is clearly violating the Court orders and seems to have obtained the Court orders on misconceived ideas. During the course of discussion, management flately refused to accommodate the retrenched workers. The management further stated if they were pressurized they will be constrained to close down the unit and terminate the services of remaining 150 workers as well. 4.? In pursuance of the above findings, petitioners preferred an application under section 25-A IRO, 1969 before the Labour Court and succeeded in getting the order of compensation on 22-5-2003. Against the above order the respondent preferred labour appeal before the High Court of Sindh mainly on ground that the document i.e. letter, dated 23-12-1999 which is being relied upon was not admissible as its original was not produced and photostat was not sufficient to grant relief to them. Learned High Court vide impugned judgment while agreeing with the contention of the respondent allowed the appeals as a result whereof Labour Court's order was set aside. As such instant petitions have been filed for leave to appeal. 5.? Petitioners appeared in person and stated that they are relying upon letter, dated 23rd December, 1999 and as Tin Manufacturing Department is working therefore, they were wrongly retrenched, as such the Labour Court on having taken into consideration had rightly granted compensation to them. Whereas on the other hand respondent denied the contention of the petitioners. 6.? In the interest of justice notice was given to Advocate-General, who appeared along with Director, Labour and placed the original letter, dated 23rd December, 1999 from the record and confirmed its contents. When we confronted to the respondents' counsel with the contents of the documents, he was of the opinion that the company had already undergone sufficient losses therefore, it is not possible to accommodate the petitioners.

7. We have heard petitioners, who appeared in persons and respondents' counsel as well as A.-G. and have also gone through the contents of the letter, dated 23rd December, 1999. It is to be noted that as far as the letter, dated 23rd December, 1999 is concerned, it being the genuine one was acceptable. The learned High Court erred in law in not accepting the same and if at all genuineness of the letter was doubtful, it could have referred the matter to the Labour Court for taking the evidence from the Labour Directorate to prove the genuineness of the letter.

8. Be that as it may, as now contents of the letter have been proved genuine according to the statement of Director Labour, who appeared along with Advocate-General, therefore, we are of the opinion that contents of this document cannot be doubted. However, question remains as to whether at this stage relief, sought by the petitioner before the Labour Court, can be granted. In this behalf it may be noted that the High Court may have decided the case on merits instead of non-suiting the petitioners on technical grounds. Therefore, we are of the opinion that in the interest of justice and fairplay it would be appropriate if by setting aside the impugned judgment, case is remanded for deciding the case of the petitioners, on merits after taking into consideration the contents of the letter, relevant para. therefrom has been reproduced hereinabove. Thus, for the foregoing reasons the impugned judgment dated 5-9-2005 in all the above noted petitions is set aside. Cases are remanded to the High Court of Sindh to dispose of the appeals filed by the respondents as well as by the petitioners and to dispose them of expeditiously as far as possible within the period of three months preferably. The petitions are converted into appeals and allowed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. H.B.T./L-3/SC???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeals allowed.