1990 PLP 734 (PLC)

Ata‑ur‑Rehman Shaikh for Appellant. Respondent in person. Date of hearing: 16th April, 1989. The appeal captioned above challenges the decision dated 2‑2‑1989 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. IX, Multan, whereby the respondent has been directed to be reinstated in service without back benefits.

2. The services of the respondent were terminated vide order Exh. R‑1 on the ground that due to financial losses the post of the respondent had been abolished. Besides the order of termination Exh. R‑11 no documentary evidence was produced to establish that in reality the appellant had suffered losses and that the termination of the post held by the respondent was justified. In support of the plea of financial losses Mr. Saleem Zia Qureshi, Manager (RW‑1) and Mr. Farooq Ahmad Ansari (RW‑2) were examined. RW‑1 deposed that on account of financial difficulties the khata in which the respondent was employed had been closed. He in cross‑examination admitted that he was employed for two or three years as Manager of M.L.I. and was not serving in the appellant mills. He also said that he had no evidence with him in support of the financial difficulties of the appellant mills and for the closure of the Khata in which the respondent was employed. R.W. 2 deposed that the spinning khata in which the respondent was employed, was not functioning in those days and that the machinery had been sold as the financial position of the mills was not good. In cross‑examination he admitted that he had no documentary evidence of the financial difficulties. He also said that he could not tell how much losses were incurred but added that on account of losses the mills had been closed. He had said in examination‑in‑chief that the spinning Khata had been given on lease. In cross‑examination he said that he had signed the agreement of lease but he for the present had no proof of it.

3. Previously also the services of the respondent were terminated but he was directed to be reinstated in service. Again his services have been terminated. This fact coupled with the facts that no documentary evidence about the financial losses, abolition of post and giving the work of spinning on lease, shows that the services of the respondent were terminated since the appellant did not want to keep him in service after he was directed to be reinstated in service. If in reality there had been any financial difficulties encountered by the appellant and the spinning khata had been closed or given on lease, the documentary evidence would have been produced. Needless to say that every mill maintains accounts and thus documentary evidence of profit and loss is available. It is stated that the deed of lease was executed but its non‑production clearly shows that the plea is false. Even if it be taken that the work of spinning had been leased out, this could not be a ground for terminating the services of the employees working in that Khata, because the workers go alongwith the work. By the change of the employer, the workers are not adversely affected. Of course, where a Khata is closed and the machinery is sold, there is no other alternative but to terminate the services of the employees. But where the work is leased out, the workers have a right to work under the lessee. If the lessee is not inclined to accept the existing workers, the services of the workers can be terminated with their consent by paying to them service benefits but against their wishes their services cannot be terminated. The learned lower Court thus rightly accepted the grievance petition of the respondent and directed his reinstatement.

4. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. H.B.T./679/Lb. P???????? Appeal dismissed.