1995 PLP 77 (PLC)

Date of hearing: 27th September, 1994. These appeals call in question the composite order of the Labour Court No. III, Karachi whereby the petition for reinstatement in service came .to be dismissed. The circumstances forming the background of the dispute in brief are as follows: The petitioners were employees of the respondent in different categories as Tailor/Machine-man/Weaver/Coolie/Cobbler in the Tent Department etc. of the respondent. Their services came to be terminated by the respondent on or about 11‑10‑1991 on the ground of financial stringency which had dogged them for a few years. The petitioners had remonstrated and as there was no turn in the events, after sending grievance notices they had filed petitions before the Labour Court. It was urged by the petitioners that they had been dispensed with on account of their involvement in the trade union activities which was resented by the respondent. The allegations were denied.

2. The petitioners were their own witnesses in the petition filed by them while Abdullah Shah, Factory Manager appeared on behalf of the respondent. He was cross‑examined in the case of Bannay Mian and by consent of the parties his evidence was transferred to the file of all the remaining case.

3. The Labour Court finding the material issues against the petitioners dismissed the petition culminating in this appeal.

4. There is nothing to show from the record that there was any unrest or discontent among the workers at the material time. The fact also remains that every one of them was not even a member of the union. It is so admitted at least by some including Bannay Mian that among the 95 workers retrenched, some were from the union that was the CBA and the others from the rival union.

5. It is a trite proposition of law that it is not enough to say that the petitioner was removed because he was eye‑sore to the employers because of his trade union activities. It has to be proved through positive and reliable evidence. Simple insinuations or suggestions are not enough. It has been so held in 1975 PLC 538, Gestetner Employees' Union v. Gestetner Pakistan Ltd, I cannot therefore say that the retrenchment of the appellant was as a result of any vendetta and therefore mala fide.

6. What remains now to say is whether the retrenchment of the appellants who are twelve in number before me, out of some ninety‑Live workers was because of the reasons as intimated to the appellants in the letter of termination. Abdullah Shah their witness has produced the balance‑sheet for 2 years 1990‑91 and 1991‑92 to prove that the business was passing through rough times. No worthwhile attempt was at all made to prove that what he was saying did not approximate with truth. Bannay Mian one of the appellants admitted that the respondent had to retrench them on account of the losses sustained by the company. His only grievance was that they should have been informed in time about what awaited so that they could do something to look for their sustenance elsewhere. It is true that every one has not admitted the loss but there is nothing beyond their bland denials. If the balance‑sheet was a make belief affair or did not depict the correct picture of the company's fortunes, it was open to them to apply to the Provincial Government to nominate an Auditor to audit the accounts of the respondent‑company as envisaged in section 23‑B, subsection (10) of the I.R.O. to inspect the accounts, records, premises and stores of the factory. It is admitted that the respondent had paid overtime dues to some of the workers but it has been stated that it was to meet emergencies. ??? ?

7. It is an unfettered right of an employer to order his affairs for the proper running of his establishment so long as the same is in conformity with Standing Order 12(3) and Standing Order 13 of the Standing Orders Ordinance. (See M/s. Bayer Pharma Ltd. v. Mirza Hussain Akhtar 1981 PLC 24).

8. There way a faint suggestion that juniors were retained and the appellants were axed. Nobody has pointed out as to who from their category had been retained at their expense. Even the admission of Abdullah Shah that there were some 100 employees with them on daily wages basis for some 18 months or so will make no difference as it was not suggested that they had come after their retrenchment had taken place. That will be a separate category and none of the petitioners alleged that they came from that category.

9. It appears that some of the appellants if not all, have not been paid their dues by the respondent as they had not turned up to collect the same, though called upon to do so. Now that the ties stand finally severed, the dues if still outstanding should be cleared up without any loss of time.

10. In the result the impugned order of retrenchment is affirmed and the appeals are dismissed. H.B.T./2366/Lb.S ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeals dismissed.