1991 PLP 361 (PLC)

4. The learned Labour Court has held the appellant Amanat Ali as a workman and no cross appeal has been filed against this finding. The only question that requires consideration is whether the removal of the appellant from service was bona fide due to re‑organization. The respondents have produced an agreement of contract whereby one Messrs Phonenix Security Service (Pvt.) Ltd., had been entrusted with the work of the security of the respondents establishment from July, 1984. Therefore the Security Guards employed by the respondents had become surplus. There is no evidence on record to show that any Security Guard had been employed by the respondents after the removal of the service of the appellant or that the Security work is not being done by the contractor. There is no provision in Standing Orders Ordinance which prohibits the establishment from re‑organization by giving the work of security on contract basis to a contractor.

5. Mr. M.M. Jeelani, the learned Advocate for the appellant has contended that the order of termination of service of the appellant was not in accordance with Standing Orders 12(3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968; which reads as under:‑ "12(3).‑‑The services of a workman shall not be terminated nor shall a workman be removed, retrenched, discharged or dismissed from service, except by an order, in writing which shall explicitly state the reason for the action taken. In case a workman is aggrieved by the termination of his services or removal, retrenchment, discharge or dismissal, he may take action in accordance with the provisions of section 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (XXIII of 1969) and thereupon the provisions of the said section shall apply as they apply to the redress of an individual grievance:"

6. It may be pertinent to reproduce the termination letter issued to the appellant, Amanat Ali which is Annexure `B' to the Memo of Appeal. It is dated 4‑6‑1987 and addressed to Amanat Ali, APK Factory, Karachi. "Your Ref. Our ReLF‑197 BPK/gt Karachi 4th June, 1987. Re:‑ Retrenchment on account of abolition of Security Department Dear Sir, You are employed as Security Guard in the Factory. As a measure of economisation, rationalisation and reorganization, it has been decided to abolish the Factory Security Department altogether. Your services have therefore become surplus to our requirements for the above reason. We are constrained to terminate your services on account of redundancy with immediate effect. One month's salary in lieu of notice alongwith all other terminate benefits admissible may be collected from the Head Office. We wish you the best of luck and thank you for the services you have rendered in the past. Yours faithfully AEG Pakistan (Private) Limited, (Sd.) B.P. Kavasji Factory Manager."

7. The reason shown in this letter is that appellant was being removed due to abolition of Security Department as a measure of economisation, rationalisation and re‑organization. It is contended by Mr. M.M. Jeelani that the evidence on record shows, that the respondents had been paying bonus to the workmen which indicated that they were not suffering any losses. However, the fact remains that the work of security has been given on contract which amounts to re‑organization of the work. One of the reasons shown in this termination order is re‑organization'. Therefore, this order cannot be said not to be in conformity with the provisions of Standing Order 12(3). There is nothing on record to show that the management' or the establishment had any reason to victimize the appellant. There is no allegation or proof of any malice. Therefore, the action of the management cannot be considered as `mala fide', and the order of the learned Labour Court rejecting the grievance petition of the appellant does not warrant any interference. However, I would observe that the management has willingly made ex gratia payments to other 3 Security Guards, who had been removed from service, including the 2 co‑appellants, namely, Zarbat Khan and Zanan Gul. It is stated by Mr. Tausif Ali, Admin Executive of the respondents that they were prepared to pay Rs.55,000 as legal dues to the appellant and Rs.10,000 as an ex gratia payment. It is also admitted by him that they had paid Rs.20,000 as ex gratia payment to the appellant, Zanan Gul. Under the circumstances, the appeal is rejected with this modification that the respondents should pay to the appellant his legal dues and also Rs.20,000 as an ex gratia payment. M.Y.H./1691/Lb.S Appeal rejected.