REGIONAL-MANAGER, PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPLIES CORPORATION, MULTAN Versus MAHMOODUL HASAN

This is an appeal arising from the decision dated 4‑1‑1987 recorded by learned Labour Court No.9, Multan, whereby the respondent has been directed to be re‑instated in service with all back benefits.

2. The facts are that the services of the respondent were terminated on the plea of reorganization and retrenchment. The respondent had challenged the said order in his grievance petition, copy of which is P.1. The said petition was dismissed on 30‑6‑1983 holding that due to financial losses the scouring Khata in which the respondent had been working had been rightly closed. The respondent has now brought another application under section 25‑A on the ground that scouring Khata has been restarted but he has not been recalled. The plea taken by the appellant was that the plant was sold along with the machinery, therefore, the respondent had no right of being put back to work. Learned labour Court has observed that since there is present documentary evidence regarding giving certain Khatas on lease, this plea was believable but since there is no documentary evidence with regard to the sale of the scouring Khata, the oral statement of RW. 1 is not sufficient. The observation is wrong. Documentary evidence of sale is also available which is R .2. This is annual report for 1982. It not only shows loss but also shows that certain plants and machinery were sold. At page 11 is mentioned the sale of scouring plant for Rs. 500,000. The name of the purchaser is also given. It was purchased by Qadir Wool Scoring Mill, Multan. So the sale stands proved. It appears that first of all scoring Khata was closed due to losses and the services of the respondent were terminated and thereafter the plant was sold. The case of the respondent is that not only in the scoring Khata but in other connected wings he had been working, therefore, he was entitled to be recalled when the mill started refunctioning. This is not possible. The previous petition of the respondent was dismissed on the ground that the respondent was working in the scoring Khata which due to the reorganization had been closed. The petition was dismissed and order was not challenged. If in reality the respondent had been working in connected wings and had a right to be adjusted there he would have come forward with this plea. Since it stands finally decided that the respondent was in scoring Khata which was closed, it cannot be said that he was working in other connected wings and has a right to be recalled. Admittedly scoring Khata is not functioning even now. This fact the respondent had admitted in his statement although has not admitted the sale. Learned Labour Court has pointed out certain E contradictions with regard to the working of the other Khatas given on lease, but they do not benefit the respondent inasmuch as he belonged to the scoring Khata. Since before scoring Khata along with machinery was sold, the respondent stood terminated from service, even the purchasers are not obliged to recall him. If the fact of the closing of the Khata had been found to be fictitious the respondent would have some case, but it stands finally decided that the said Khata was rightly closed and the services of the respondent justifiably terminated. Therefore, neither he could challenge the sale nor could ask for re‑employment or re‑instatement. Of course if the said Khata had been restarted by the appellant he could have claimed to be recalled in preference to his juniors if any. The respondent, therefore, has been wrongly directed to be re‑instated in service.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent is not covered by the definition of 'workman' given in section 2(i), Standing Orders Ordinance, since he was not performing any manual duty but had to supervise the work of others. I am afraid the definition of workman given in Standing Orders Ordinance is not relevant since the objection raised by the appellant B was that the respondent was not a workman under I.R.O. and thus, could not invoke the jurisdiction of Labour Court. There is no evidence with regard to the wages of the respondent. According to exception (b) to section 2(xxviii) that employee is not a workman who has supervisory duties and his wages exceeds Rs.800 p. m. Unless both the conditions are satisfied a person coming to the Labour Court is not ousted from the definition of workman given in section 2(xxxviii) I.R.O. 1969. The learned Labour Court has, therefore, rightly adjudged the respondent as a workman.

4. As a result the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision, the grievance petition of the respondent is dismissed.

A. E. /300/Lb.P

Appeal accepted.