1976 PLP 448 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD AFZAL CHEEMA, J.‑M/s. Star Textile Mills Limited peti tioner herein is aggrieved by the order of a learned Judge of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, dated 1‑6‑1976 whereby its Constitutional Petition No. 667 of 1975, challenging the validity of the orders of the Junior Labour Court and Sind Labour Court No. IV, was dismissed. The short background of the case is that on 18-10-1974 the petitioner had to close down auto‑weaving and, pirn‑winding section for economic reasons as alleged by it out for victimization of workers according to Respon dents as they were members of the Union which was the Collective Bargaining Agency, resulting in the retrenchment of 40; workers, who were served with one month's notice of termination of services. Some of the retrenched workers filed grievance petitions followed by an applica tion before the Junior Labour Court under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. It appears that the number of the contesting workers went on dwindling du6ng the pendency of the proceedings with the result that only 19 respondents are left in the field. Vide its order dated 4‑4‑1975, the Junior Labour Court after recording evidence of the parties came to the conclusion that the retrenchment of the workers was not bona fide and as such in contravention of section 13 of the Ordinance 13 of 1968. In appeal the IVth Sind Labour Court, Karachi. upheld these findings vide order dated 20‑6‑1975 and having failed before the High Court in writ jurisdiction, the petitioner has now sought special leave to appeal. A perusal of the High Court's judgment shows that the petitioner virtually sought the reversal of the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the two Labour Courts with which normally the High Courts would not do interfere except for strong legal grounds. In support of the petition for special leave to appeal, learned counsel contended before us that the findings of mala fide and victimization were based on no evidence whatsoever, that out of 406 retrenched workers none of the 19 contestants had entered the witness‑box in support of the allega tions, that the petitioners evidence consisting of the testimony of its Director Mr. Mahmud Dada Bhai and its Mill Manager Mr. Abdul Aziz supported by a number of documents placed on the record was completely overlooked by the Courts below arid as such no sanctity attached to such a finding of fact. A perusal of the Judgments of the Courts below shows that the circum stances which disposed them to a finding of mala fide and victimisation were, that the retrenched workers were members of the Union which was the Collective Bargaining Agent, against some of whom criminal cases were also got registered by the Management, that the retrenchment was effected at a time whom the export of cloth had generally shown an upward trend and there was no decline in the price of the cotton in the internal market, that immediately before the termination of the workers services, the Management resorted to fresh recruitment of a large number of other workers, and that the retrenchment had been made in violation of last in first out principle. Relying on a schedule of the petitioner's yearly exports for the year 1971‑72, 1972‑73 and 1973‑74, Annexure 'A' and that of export quota for the years 1973‑74, Annexure 'B', learned counsel strenuously contended that the decline in the export from about 90 lacs square yards in 1971‑72, to about 30 lacs square yards in 1973‑74 and the non‑utilization of the quota allocated to it clearly indicated the slump in its business and to that extent the Courts below were not justified in finding that the closing down of two sections was resorted to as a measure of victimisation. It was further submitted that the uneconomic situation had been deliberately created by the workers by having recourse to go slow tactics. Even though prima facie there might be some force in this contention it can hardly justify the reversal of a concurrent finding based on an overall consideration of the relevant facts in their totality. In fact most of these findings were based on certain admissions made by or concessions elicited from the Director and the Manager of the petitioner during cross‑examina tion. This has not been placed on the record. Again it is difficult to believe that while the performance of the Textile Industry in the country as a whole was quite satisfactory, the petitioner should have been exceptionally visited by a slump because of the non‑cooperation and hostile attitude of the workers. It is surprising that despite continuous non‑cooperation of the workers for three; years resulting in loss of production no action was taken against them short of sudden closing down of two sections. But even if an alternative view was possible on the submissions made by the learned counsel, this would hardly be a ground for the interference by this Court. The petition fails and it hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.