1995 PLP 407 (PLC)

Hamid Hussain for the Management. Rana Mehmood Ali Khan, Representative for the Workers. Date of hearing: 30th.lanuary, 1995. These arc connected appeals arising from orders of learned Labour Court, Hyderabad in respect of grievance petition filed by permanent workers of M/s. Amreen Glass Bangles Industries, Hyderabad against their Proprietor Haji Muhammad Yameen. These workers were removed from service on 12‑8‑1986. They were allegedly laid off without any notice in writing and they were paid wages for the maximum lay off period of 14 days from 12th August to 26th August, 1986 and thereafter they were not reinstated for the reason that the gas had been disconnected as also the stock was accumulated. They riled their grievance petition before the Labour Court. The Labour Court allowed the petition, ordered their reinstatement and also the back benefits including full wages from 12‑8‑1986 onwards. The proprietors of the Glass Factory then formally terminated the service of the respondents in writing by order dated 22‑9‑1987 under Order 11(3) of the W.P. Standing Orders. The workers were not paid wages from 26th August, 1986 to 22‑9‑1987 when they received notice of termination of their services. They accordingly filed appeals before the Appellate Tribunal at Karachi. The Tribunal on the misrepresentation of Mr. Wahid Bukksh, Representative for the workers that they had been paid their dues set aside the order of Labour Court and dismissed the appeals. The petitioners and the respondents then invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court in Constitutional Petition No.D‑4 of 1988. The respondents had challenged the order of termination of service after reinstatement before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal held that order of reinstatement by the learned Labour Court had already been set aside and the Tribunal could not therefore order reinstatement of the appellants after their formal termination on 3‑11‑1987 but they were declared entitled to receive the dues from 22‑9‑1987 to 3‑11‑1987. The petitioner Haji Muhammad Yameen also invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court in Petition No.D‑99 of 1991. The petitions were heard and all the appeals decided by the Tribunal were remanded for hearing both the parties and then deciding them on merits.

2. I have heard Mr. Hamid Hussain, Advocate for Amreen Glass Bangles Industries and Mr. Rana Mehmood Ali Khan for the respondent workers. Mr. Hamid Hussain has admitted that after the decision of the; Labour Court the Proprietor paid wages for 14,days lay off period and not for the period from 12th August to the date of termination i.e. 22nd September, 1987 when their services were terminated; that the factory was closed and all the workers were laid off and the Proprietor has died.

3. On the other hand Mr. Rana Mehmood Ali Khan, representative for workmen has argued that the workers were paid only for 14 days lay off period and their services were orally terminated. The workers then riled grievance application before the Labour Court. Lender orders of the Labour Court the workers were reinstated and the Proprietors were directed to pay them full back benefits but these orders were not complied with their services were only terminated formally for the second time on 22nd September, 1987. The Representative has further‑argued that the factory is not closed but is running under the name of Shereen Glass Industries; that apart from the respondents the other workers continued to work in this factory; that the second termination order is bad as the provisions of Order 13 have not been followed and junior most workers have not been terminated but only the respondents have been deprived of their jobs; that no permission for closure of the factory had been obtained from the Labour Court.

4. The learned Advocate for Amreen Glass Bangles Industries has admitted that the workmen are obviously entitled to receive their full dues from 26th August, 1986 to 22nd September, 1987 when their services were formally terminated. Haji Muhammad Yameen Proprietor has also admitted in his cross‑examination that he had terminated the service of the respondent workers after reinstating them under direction of the Labour Court but he could not pay them their dues as there was no production that he has paid the workers only their dues up to 11‑8‑1986. He has also admitted that he has not obtained any permission from the Labour Court for closure of the factory.

5. Under Order 11 of the Standing Orders if workmen are laid off on account of non‑supply of gas or for any other reason mentioned m Order 11(1) they are to get half the wages for. the first 14 days and if the lay off is to be indefinitely prolonged the services of workmen can be terminated after due notice or pay in lieu thereof. All the workers are alleged to have been terminated and there is no question of retrenchment. If the workers feel that merely name of the factory has been changed and the closing down of the factory is without prior permission they can separately seek a remedy if any against the Proprietors for the purpose of these appeals. Their second termination on 2‑9‑1987 under Order 11(3) cannot be called in question provided they are paid full dues up to the date of termination including notice pay and gratuity within 15 days. All the appeals stand disposed of in terms of this order. H.B.T./2416/Lb.S ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Order accordingly.