1992 PLP 358 (PLC)

This is an appeal against the order dated 3-3-1991 passed by the Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No. VI at Hyderabad whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was allowed and he was ordered to be reinstated in service with full back benefits.

2. I have heard Mr. Raees Mushtaq for the appellant and Mr. M.M. Aqeel for the respondent and also have gone through the record and proceedings of the case.

3. The admitted facts of the case appear to be that the respondent was admittedly a workman working as Head Clerk of the respondent when his services were terminated on 3-6-1982. The learned Labour Court on 30-9-1983 dismissed his grievance application against the said order of dismissal and this Tribunal on 12-11-1984 also dismissed his appeal. He filed Constitutional Petition No. C.P.D-31 of 1985 before the Hon'ble High Court of Sindh which was allowed on 31-10-1989 and he was ordered to be reinstated without back benefits. He was reinstated on 31-12-1989 but after 10 days viz. on 10-1-1990 the appellant again terminated his services on the ground of re-organisation. After serving grievance notice he filed grievance petition, which was resisted by the appellant on the ground that the services of the respondent were no more required due to re-organisation in the Mill.

4. It may be pointed out that the previous order of removal from service. of the respondent was also passed on the ground that his services were no more required, without showing reason as to why his services were no longer required. In the order of removal, after 10 days of reinstatement, there appears to be improvement over the previous order and reason is shown why services of the respondent were no longer required. The reason is the re-organisation in the Mill.

5. The re-organisation in the Mill admittedly was because of installation of automatic cone machine, as a result of which 50 workers are said to have been retrenched or to have resigned even prior to the reinstatement of the respondent. The re-organisation due to installation of the machine might be called for in the factory, and quite possibly because of installation of automatic machine, some workers might have become surplus and may have been persuaded to resign because of that reason. The question as to whether the installation of automatic machine in the Mill could call for abolition of post of Head Clerk in the office requires consideration. There appears to be no nexus between the work of Head Clerk and the installation of the automatic cone machine. Head Clerk even as a workman, has also to supervise the work of other clerks who are expected to maintain various registers of purchase, sale, attendance etc., etc. Reduction of the number of workers may justify reduction of some clerical staff, who may be keeping attendance registers, but by no stretch of imagination it looks logical, that in such a case, the post of Head Clerk would become surplus.

6. The learned Labour Court has pointed out that the appellant in the Court but some other -person namely Mr. Khalid Zaman has been examined had not examined the person who signed the written statement. He has admitted that in the written statement, the details of the machinery imported for installation have not been shown. He admittedly did not have any personal knowledge of the working of the appellant up to February 1990, till he was appointed as Manager Administration in respondent Mill in February 1990. It may be pointed that services of the respondent were terminated on 10-1-1990 viz before the appointment of this witness. He states that intimation was sent to the Head Office of surplus staff in the Winding Department and in the Ring Department due to operation of this automatic cone machine. This witness was not able to give number of workers after re-organisation in the Mill and number of workers before re-organisation. He has admitted that strength of workers would be more than

250. He has produced Annexure R/2 whereby the Head Office was informed that due to automation the same existing strength of about 50 employees would be surplus w.e.f. 1st November, 1989. The surplus workers are shown as Winders, Doffers, Siders, Office Staff. In pursuance of this letter about 50 persons are said to have been retrenched or persuaded to resign. This letter is dated 20-10-1989 and the 50 persons are said to have been retrenched much before the reinstatement of the respondent.

7. After the reinstatement of respondent Exh. The Finance Manager Head Office wrote R/5 to the Manager Administration showing the proposed re-organisation in administration set-up. As a result of this re organisation only respondent was considered to be surplus staff vide Exh. R/6. There is no evidence that any other member of this staff was retrenched because of this alleged re-organisation.

8. It would be seen that alleged re-organisation in the appellant Mill was made in two phases. One phase was pursuant to the installation of machine in October 1989, before the reinstatement of the respondent under which certain mill workers who were found surplus resigned. This surplus of the Mill workers due to installation of automatic machine looks plausible. However, second phase started immediately after the reinstatement of the respondent on 31-12-1989. After about 2 or 3 days of reinstatement it was considered the post of Head Clerk had become surplus. This alleged re-organisation in the second phase does not appear to be genuine but appears to have been prompted by the reinstatement of the respondent by the High Court after long battle of litigation extending for nearly 8 years. This retrenchment of only one person viz the, respondent in the second phase looks more like colourable exercise of the powers of the employer of re-organisation and is not genuine or bona fide and could not be because of installation of automatic cone machine months earlier.

9. The learned Labour Court has written a well-reasoned order discussing every point raised by the appellant and I see no reason to disagree with the finding of the learned Labour Court. The appeal is therefore dismissed. H.B.T./1974/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.