1997 PLP 241 (PLC)

Date of hearing: 17th March, 1996. This appeal arises from the order of the Fourth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, dismissing the grievance petition under section 25‑A of the I.R.O., 1969 for reinstatement.

2. The appellant was senior‑most Driver with Respondent No. 1 P.I.D.C. Limited. By an order dated 31‑8‑1983 the appellant was relieved from P.I.D.C. and transferred to P.I.D.C. Prin0ting Press Division. The Printing Press Division was closed down on account for losses and the Driver alongwith other workmen was terminated. The termination was w.e.f. closes of work on 30‑6‑1988. This Order was issued by the Project Manager for P.I.D.C. Printing Press (Pvt.) Limited.

3. Mr. Latif Saghar, Advocate on behalf of the Driver has argued that in a similar case workmen employed by the Corporation were transferred later on, to another Company which was also being run by the said Corporation as its part or subsidiary. It became a Private Company under the Corporation. The services of the workers were terminated after it became Private Limited Company. The High Court held that the workman was an employee of the Corporation' His services could not, therefore, be terminated by the Private Company to which his services had been transferred by the Corporation. The termination was, therefore, illegal. This matter had gone up to the Supreme Court and it was held by the Supreme Court that the order of the High Court was possible and proper and there was no ground for interference.

4. In the present case the services of the Senior Driver were not terminated by the P.I.D.C. but were merely transferred to its Project of Printing Press. This Project encountered losses and was closed down after it became a Private Limited Company. Its employees were all terminated without distinction by Manager P.I.D.C. Printing Press but since he was not the appointing authority of the Driver he could not terminate his services and he could at the most repatriate him to the Head Office i.e. P.I.D.C. Corporation.

5. The termination, even otherwise has been effected without an order in writing giving reasons under' Order 12(3) of the Standing Order Ordinance. Mr. Latif Sagar has, therefore, argued that termination is not valid and a workman cannot be terminated by an order published in the newspaper and with retrospective effect.

6. It has on the other hand been argued by Mr. Abdul Hafiz, Advocate on behalf of the respondents that after transfer of the appellant the C.B.A. and the Management affected a Settlement under which the transferred employees of the P.I.D.C. became the employees of the Printing Press on the same terms and conditions. Their previous service with the P.I.D.C. Corporation, therefore, ceased and their new service commenced on the same terms and conditions, The Driver was, therefore, no longer in the employment of P.I.D.C. Corporation. This was in the year 1986. After about two years the Printing Press Company had to be closed down for want of funds on 30‑6‑1988. On learning about this move to close down the workers approached N.I.R.C. and obtained a stay order. On completion of the proceedings the N.I.R.C. withdrew the stay order and allowed closing down of the Printing Establishment. Before the Notification in the Press individual orders in writing were despatched to the workers by registered post and it was stated in these orders that they would be paid their legal/termination dues as stated in their termination order dated 28‑6‑1986.

7. Thus Printing Press establishment was closed down for want of funds with permission of the N.I.R.C. and the employment of its workers were terminated by order in writing giving reasons and offering all the legal A dues.

8. Thus, the termination was valid and legal and the order of the Labour Court was proper and reasonable. The order of the Labour Court is, accordingly, maintained and the appeal is dismissed. H.B.T./85/Lb./S ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeal dismissed.