1990 PLP 711 (PLC)

Syed Iqbal Ahmad Gilani for Appellant. Qamar‑uz‑Zaman Butt for Respondent. Date of hearing: 27th June, 1989. The appeal captioned above emerges from the decision dated 28‑3‑1989 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. IX, Multan Camp at Sahiwal, whereby the respondent has been directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.

2. In the written statement the position taken by the appellant was that the respondent was retrenched with effect from 4‑9‑1982 under Standing Orders 11, 12 and 13 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 with bona fide intention. It was further contended that the factory had practically been closed with effect from 18‑5‑1982 and no work was being done. It has been decided in some case that in reality the appellant mills was running at a loss, with the result that the electricity bills of heavy amounts could not be paid, which resulted in the disconnection of electrical energy and that the services of some of the employees were terminated before and some of them after getting permission under Standing Order 11‑A of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 from the Labour Court. The plea of the appellant in the present case is the same. A copy of the judgment‑ of this Court delivered in the case titled as "Multan Cotton Asghar Ali" decided on 26‑4‑1969 has been pros ask for the dismissal of the grievance petition of the respondent for his reinstatement. The appellant has to establish that the services of the respondent were terminated for the reason that the factory had been closed and no work was being done. Needless to say that some employees usually are retained either for winding up of the work or to perform little work which has remained undone. The appellant has not brought on the record copy of the order of termination of the services of the respondent and one of the grounds given by the learned lower Court is the same. If copy of the order had been placed on the record, it could be examined what was the reason of termination of the services and whether the reason was sufficient or not. So since the copy of the order has not been produced, it does not stand proved that the services of the respondent were terminated for the reason that permission was obtained from the Labour Court for the closure of the factory and that due to the closure his services were terminated. In the absence of any order of termination on the record, it would be presumed that no such order was passed. The termination of the respondent, therefore, is hit by Standing Order 12(3), which provides that the services of a worker can be terminated by giving explicit reasons. Reasons can be given if an order is reduced into writing. The learned lower Court has thus rightly directed I the reinstatement of the respondent in service.

3. So far as back benefits are concerned, the respondent did urge in his statement that from the date of termination he is jobless. No evidence in rebuttal was produced by the appellant to show that the respondent had been earning his livelihood so back benefits too have been rightly allowed by the learned lower Court. ???????????

4. As a result of the observations made above, the appeal fails and is dismissed. A.E./690/Lb. P Appeal dismissed.