1998 PLP 152 (PLC)

M. Rafiq Malik for Respondents Nos. 1 to

6. Date of hearing: 4th March, 1996. These are six connected appeals from order of the Fourth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, whereby the grievance petitions of the six respondents were allowed for identical reasons with full back benefits.

2. The six respondents in this case had been appointed as Security Guards by appellant Hashoo Steel Industries Ltd; They worked for about nine years with the appellant.

3. On the night between 29th July, 1994 and 30th July, 1994, 18 pieces of billets appeared to have been stolen from the factory and they were found lying outside the premises of the factory at 8-15 a.m. The Security Guards were all charge-sheeted though Abdul Latif, Security Guard was on duty as Chowkidar for the night in question. The Chowkidars filed their written statement that they were innocent and not responsible for any theft. The appellant Steel Industries Management thereafter, thought that this system of Chowkidars was outdated and the management re-organised their system of security and it was considered necessary to obtain the services of Security Guards under the contract system when such guards used modern technique and were jointly responsible for the security of the factory. The appellant Steel Industries then terminated the services of all the six Chowkidars by order in writing giving reasons and appointed Security Guards under the contract system. The respondent guards filed their grievance petitions before the Labour Court and the Labour Court held that since these six guards were charge-sheeted for theft there was a stigma against them and they could only be dismissed for misconduct under Order 15(3) of the Standing Orders but not terminated simplicter under Order 12(3). The learned Labour Court considered the termination of all the six respondents to be mala fide by holding that the excuse of re-organisation was not bona fide and all the six respondents were reinstated in service with full back benefits. The Hashoo Steel Industries Ltd; have accordingly preferred this appeal.

4. It has been argued by Mr. Abdul Ghaffar for the appellant Steel Industries that the original idea of dismissing these six Chowkidars and appointing more responsible persons was kept aside by the management and they had considered it feasible to re-organise the security system and appoint security company to provide their own Chowkidars and employ modern techniques which were necessary in these days. They, therefore, terminated the services of the six Chowkidars and engaged the services of Shamsher Security Guards Private Limited who deputed five instead of six guards and charged nearly double amount than the salary they were paying to the six Chowkidars just for the sake of efficiency. It cannot, therefore, be said that the termination simpliciter of the previous six Chowkidars was mala fide as held by the Labour Court.

5. It has on the other hand been argued by Mr. Rafiq Malik, Advocate for the respondents that the termination simpliciter was for the original reasons of misconduct of theft. It was, therefore, necessary under Order 15 while terminating for misconduct to employ the procedure provided under Order 15 and termination simpliciter under Order 12 could not be adopted by the Steel Industries. Mr. Malik Rafique has also pointed out that the original system of employing contractor for the security guards was again given up by the Steel Industries and the same old system of engaging private guards was re-adopted.

6. Mr. Abdul Ghaffar on the other hand states that the management was bent upon finding better system of security and they changed the contractors once or twice and adopted the method they considered more efficient. That their action was not, therefore, mala fide but it was bona fide re-organisation of the security system.

7. I am accordingly inclined to believe that the termination of the respondents was bona fide for the purpose of re-organisation and it was not the substitute for dismissal of individual guards due to their alleged misconduct. The very fact that they kept of changing the system for better results showed their anxiety to effect improvement in the security organisation. The appellant Steel Industries cannot, therefore, be ordered to reinstate the old guards whom they had found not satisfactory. 8.? The order of the Labour Court is accordingly set aside and the six appeals are allowed. H.B.T./235/Lb.S ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeals allowed.