1995 PLP 514 (PLC(CS))

Gohar lqbal for Respondents. Date of hearing: 20th March, 1995. This appeal is directed against an order of Fourth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, whereby the respondent's petition under section 25‑A of the IRO was allowed and he was ordered to be reinstated in service with full back benefits.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent was appointed as a clerk on 5‑3‑1986 and was posted in the Security Department of the Shabbir Tiles Factory. On 31‑8‑1989 the respondent's services were terminated by an order in writing stating the reason for the action taken to be re‑organisation and consequent retrenchment.

3. The case of the respondent is that he has been victimized for joining the Union and therefore his services were terminated with one month's notice pay.

4. The learned representative for the appellant Mr. Faruq Abdul Ghani has pointed out that by re‑organisation is meant effecting retrenchment as a matter of economy. It is a right of management and it is within their discretion to terminate the services of any worker under Standing Order 12(3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. All that is required under the law is that the re‑organisation should not be a cloak to get rid of the service of any unwanted employee. All that they have to show is that the re‑organisation was bona fide. Mr. Faruq Abdul Ghani has gone through the entire oral and documentary evidence and has read the letters from American Express. M.C.B. and other Banks written to the appellant's factory to make payment of the overdrafts and loans taken by them. Since the factory was facing losses due to over expenditure they were compelled to retrench unnecessary staff as a requirement for economy in. the expenses. They accordingly abolished the post and in this category the respondent was the only clerk designated as the Security Clerk.

5. In 1981 PLC 24 this Tribunal (Justice Z.A. Channa) gave the decision that "Organisation and re‑organisation of business was a discretion of the employer. That retrenchment must, however, be bon4ide and not to, victimise employees or as a cloak to get rid of services of any particular employee". Thus all that the Labour Court had to do was to go into the question to see bona fides of the retrenchment.

6. In 1992 PLC 192 also this Tribunal held in the case of Sultani Gul and others v. Shabbir Tiles and Ceramics Ltd. that where "services of employees were terminated/retrenched on grounds of "serious lack of sales, dump of production, financial crisis, tight liquidity position and reasons beyond control of management and that management had decided to re‑organise and retrench surplus workers, it was held that the retrenchment of employees in the circumstances was bona fide and did not call for interference by Labour Court or Tribunal".

7. Under Standing Order 12(3) of the Standing Orders any workman can be retrenched or his services terminated by order in writing giving reasons. No worker can be thrust on the management against their reasonable orders of termination. In this case the management have produced a number of documents in evidence to prove necessity for effecting, economy and for re‑organisation. There is no evidence that the action taken was mala fide.

8. In the result the‑decision of the lower Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed. H.B.T./2433/Lb.S Appeal allowed.