1996 PLP 56 (PLC)
NOORMAN SHAH and another Versus M/s. PAK HARD BOARD INDUSTRIES
| Citation | 1996 PLP 56 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | NOORMAN SHAH and another Versus M/s. PAK HARD BOARD INDUSTRIES |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 56 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP 56 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Mushtak Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 56 (PLC) (NOORMAN SHAH and another Versus M/s. PAK HARD BOARD INDUSTRIES). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.P. Lodhi, Representative for Appellants.
- Farooq A. Ghani Representative for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 21st August, 1995.
Headnotes / Summary
S.Os. 12, 13 & 14
Services of employees were terminated in writing on ground that establishment was closed down as a result of re-organisation
Employees did not allege that their termination was illegal or mala fide, but claimed that though presently they were working as `operators', initially they had entered into service in the lowest grade as `Coolies', thus instead of terminating their services they could be retained at the lowest grade of Coolies on reversion
Provisions of S.Os. 13 & 14 of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Stranding Orders) Ordinance, 1968, having contemplated termination from the category of workers in which retrenchment was effected, that category could not be changed and retrenched persons could not be re-employed in the lower category
Requirements of S.O. 12 of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 having fully been complied with by employer establishment, order terminating services of employees could not be interfered with. Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan Limited v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others PLD 1987 SC 447 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan Limited v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others PLD 1987 SC 447 ref. S.P. Lodhi, Representative for Appellants. Farooq A. Ghani Representative for Respondent. Date of hearing: 21st August, 1995. These are two connected appeals arising from orders of the 1st Sindh Labour Court, Karachi whereby their grievance petitions for re‑instatement were rejected.
2. The appellants were working as operators in the Wire Knitting Machine of the respondent manufacturing Hard Boards. As a result of re-organisation the respondent Hard Board Industries closed down the Wire Knitting Machine since they could get cheaper Wire nets in the market. The respondent accordingly terminated the services of the appellant in writing giving the reasons for the retrenchment.
3. The appellants have not alleged that the termination was illegal or mala fide. They have however stated that their case of retrenchment is in contravention of Order 13 of the Standing Orders Ordinance as they were the senior most workers with 18 years service and they had entered into service in the lowest grade as coolies. They could therefore have been retained on reversion to the lower grade of coolies instead of being terminated.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent Hard Board Industries has however pointed out a decision of the Supreme Court in case of Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan Limited v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others reported in PLD 1987 SC
447. It was observed in that decision that where "employee was promoted from Salesman to Supervisor and retrenched as supervisor such employee cannot claim reversion to the post of Salesman even if employer proposed to take into employment fresh Salesman without period of one year from date of retrenchment".
5. Thus, Standing Order 13 or 14 contemplates termination from the category of workers in which retrenchment is effected. This category cannot be changed and the retrenched persons cannot be re‑employed in the lower category. But in this case it has not even been alleged that any junior person was appointed as a cooly in the Industry within one year of retrenchment. Under these circumstances Orders 13 and 14 of the Standing Orders Ordinance has no application and the requirements of Order 12 have been complied with.
6. The order of the Labour Court finding the termination to be legal and valid is therefore maintained and both the appeals are dismissed. H.B.T./2497/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.