1988 PLP 994 (PLC(CS))

Date of hearing: 16th March, 1988. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 16‑4‑1987, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. III at Karachi, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant filed by him under section 25‑A, I.R.O.1969.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case were that the appellant claimed to be a permanent workman working as Body man in the Gents Section of the respondents establishment and that following a disciplinary action, he was dismissed from service, but he was reinstated, vide the order of the Labour Court, dated 3‑10‑1985, and during the pendency of his case, there was general retrenchment resulting that Body men Section (Gents) was abolished and as his post became non‑existent, therefore, his services were terminated on 8‑10‑1985. The claim of the appellant further was that this action of the respondents establishment against him was mainly on account of his genuine and lawful trade union activities, and being aggrieved, he had served his grievance notice upon the respondents establishment followed by the present grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.U. 1969.

3. The respondents establishment resisted the petition mainly on the ground that as there had been an abolition of the Bodymen section (Gents) in the establishment and there was no work to be provided to the appellant, therefore, his services were lawfully terminated in accordance with the provisions of law, hence he was not entitled to maintain his grievance petition which was liable to be dismissed.

4. Both the parties tendered their respective evidence and they were duly cross-examined. Thereafter the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order hence, the present appeal.

5. I have heard the appellant in person who is present. An application for adjournment has been sent by Mr. Salim Raza, the Learned representative for the appellant. As there is no sound ground for the adjournment and the matter is an old one, therefore, I have rejected this adjournment application. I have also perused the record and proceedings of the case. At the very outset, I would hold that the learned Labour Court, after giving full consideration to all the related facts, circumstances and the legal aspects of the present case, has passed a very correct and well reasoned impugned order and I see nothing wrong to be interfered. There is nothing on record on behalf of the appellant to prove that either the retrenchment of the appellant was biased or mala fide, or that he had been victimized only on account of his claimed trade union activities. It is a well settled principle of law that it is always within the competence of an employer to curtail expenditures by way of retrenchment of the workers or by any other lawful manner. After going through the record and evidence on record, I would hold that the present retrenchment of the appellant had no concern, in any manner, with his alleged previous dismissal from service and the subsequent proceedings thereof. The present case is against a fresh cause of action and it had been rights', answered by the learned Labour Court vide its impugned order.

6. For the reasons discussed by me above I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and I would maintain the same. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine. A.E./1304/Lb. S. Appeal dismissed.