1994 PLP 579 (PLC)

You being the junior most Calligraphers, your services with the company have become surplus to the requirement and the same are hereby terminated with immediate effect on payment of your legal dues including notice pay in accordance with the provisions of law. We are enclosing herewith crossed Cheques No.06614234, dated 14‑5‑1991 for Rs.26,191.75 (Rupees twenty‑six thousand four hundred and ninety‑one and paisas twenty‑five only) drawn on Habib Bank Ltd., McLeod Road Branch, Karachi towards payment of your legal dues kindly acknowledge receipt."

2. The letters to the others were an same terms and were accompanied by cross cheques: Not satisfied, the petitioners had served the respondent with grievance notices and later on filed the petition before the Labour Court.

3. The petitions came to be resisted on the ground that the termination of the services had been necessitated because of the reorganization of the press because of the introduction of computer composing in the Calligraphists Section. It also mentioned of a settlement in the dispute following the termination order with the CBA, whereby the modality for the payment of legal dues also was agreed upon. It was further stated that since they had accepted the payments they were no more aggrieved parties and the petition therefore was liable to be dismissed.

4. The petitioners were their own witnesses and Timsal Askari the Attorney of the respondent, and as he styles himself their Administrator, appeared on behalf of the respondent.

5. The Labour Court for the reasons given by it allowed the petitions culminating in these appeals.

6. The record abundantly shows, and it is not denied, that the appellants were be set with financial stringency and had even made an application before the Labour Court which is still pending for the closure of their establishment. It was to surmount this problem that the appellants had entered into an arrangement with M/s. Quick Lines which came into effect from 7‑5‑1991, and it was the contractor who had installed the computers and printers in the establishment.

7. Even the respondents admit that the computer and printers had been installed and the Daily `Aman' now appeared to be printed on computer, though the headings of the news item are in the handwriting of the Calligraphers. They have also admitted that out of the 32 Calligraphers the 15 who were retrenched were the junior most, and that no Calligrapher has been appointed to replace them.

8. The alleged settlement between the parties brokered and signed by the CBA will be discarded from consideration because that will be in excess of their power as held in the case of Karachi Pipe Mills Ltd. v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and 2 others PLD 1984 Karachi

503. However, the fact that this reorganization had been brought about by the contractors will hardly make any difference, as to be found from the case of M/s. Emesco Industries Limited v. S. Irfan Ahmed 1983 PLC

981. What is more there is no insinuation of any mala fide.

9. Even the cheques of the dues were duly despatched with the letters of termination to all the respondents and the figures are mentioned in the impugned order and need not be repeated. All this is not denied.

10. Even this requirement under section 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and" Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1983 has thus been carried out to the letter. May be there is still some dispute between the parties as to whether this was the right amount or otherwise. But that will be neither here nor there. Even if no payments had been made alongwith the termination letters, everything also being the same, the termination order would still hold ground and not be invalidated. It would not lead to reinstatement, but entitle them to get the pay for one month as calculated on the basis of average earned by the workmen during the last three months as held in the case of Road Transport Corporation, Lahore v. Sher Muhammad 1971 PLC

212. In the case of Sindh Road Transport Corporation v. Muhammad Hayat Khan 1983 PLC 401 it was held that even if the notice of termination does not specifically state that the retrenched worker could collect his wages in lieu of notice, the notice would not be defective. Same was the view taken in the case of S.R.T.C. v. Bakshan and others 1980 PLC

735. The decision ‑was assailed in a writ petition and the report of the last mentioned case shows that the observation made therein was that the petitioner could still enforce the recovery of the amount but that could not invalidate the order of reinstatement. Reference may also be made to Ghulam Sarwar v Province of Punjab 1982 SCMR

46. In the circumstances the termination of the services of the respondent is unexceptionable. It was an application for reinstatement and the learned Presiding Officer could not go into the question of disputed payment. If the respondents have any grievance on that score, it is for them to seek the remedy separately. I am afraid the impugned orders cannot be sustained. I will, therefore, set these aside and allow the appeals. H.B.T./2310/Lb./S Appeals allowed.