1997 PLP 631 (PLC)
ZAHEER AHMED and another Versus Messrs CHIEF SILK MILLS, KARACHI
| Citation | 1997 PLP 631 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Mushtaq Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | ZAHEER AHMED and another Versus Messrs CHIEF SILK MILLS, KARACHI |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 631 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP 631 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Mushtaq Ali Kazi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP 631 (PLC) (ZAHEER AHMED and another Versus Messrs CHIEF SILK MILLS, KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hadi Bukhsh Bhatti for Appellants.
- Date of hearing: 6th August, 1996.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O. 12‑‑‑Termination of service‑‑‑Employer Mills had suffered losses‑‑‑In process of closing down the Mills, employer terminated services of employees in batches under S.O. 12 of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968‑‑‑Grievance of employees was that since service of more than 50 % workers were being terminated, prior permission of Labour Court was essential‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Held, in closing down process workers could be laid off in batches without permission to close down and Labour Court's permission might be the last step in process of closing down the factory, it was, therefore, not necessary that permission should have been obtained by employer before termination of services of employees, but process could be started by termination in batches‑‑‑No proceedings of any industrial dispute being pending at time of termination of services of employees, employer could legally terminate services of employees in process of closing down Mills. 1975 SCMR 49 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Hadi Bukhsh Bhatti for Appellants. Date of hearing: 6th August, 1996. These two connected appeals arise from the order of the Second Sindh Labour Court, Karachi whereby the grievance petitions of the appellants under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. were dismissed as being without substance.
2. The facts in brief are that the appellants were permanent workers in the Silk Mills of the respondent at S.I.T.E., Karachi. The mills were suffering losses and in the process of closing down the respondents were terminating the services of workmen in batches under Order 12 of the Standing Orders Ordinance. Thus, out of 50 workers the services of 10 workers were terminated. Thereafter, services in batch of another 10 persons were laid off.
3. The grievance of the appellants is that since the services of more than 50 % of the workers were being terminated the prior permission of the Labour Court had not been obtained in this behalf. It has, however, been held by the Supreme Court in 1975 Supreme Court Monthly Review 49 that in the closing down process the workmen can be laid off in batches without prior permission to close down and the Labour Court's permission might be the last step in the process of closing down this factory, therefore, it is not necessary that the permission should be obtained before termination of the services of workers slowly and the process can be started by termination in A batches
4. The learned Labour Court also found that no proceedings of any Industrial Dispute were pending at the time of termination of the services of the appellants. The services of the notice of strike does not amount to pending proceedings under section 47 of the I.R.O.
5. Under the circumstances there was justification for the respondent to legally terminate the services of the appellants in the process of closing down the mills.
6. There is no substance in these appeals which are dismissed in limine. H.B.T/163/Lb.S?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeals dismissed.