SHER MUHAMMAD Versus REHMANIA TEXTILE SILK MILLS NO. 1, FAISALABAD

ORDER

This is an application under section 51 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for the recovery of the wages for the period after the petitioners were directed to be reinstated in service by the learned Court, but they were not paid by the respondents.

2. The petitioners were dismissed from service and they had challenged the dismissal orders in the Labour Court and ultimately succeeded. During the subsistence of the dismissal orders the respondents Mills was closed pursuant to a settlement arrived at between the then C.BA. and the management on the ground that the Mills was running at loss. According to the settlement, the workers had to give resignations and the respondents had to pay them termination benefits. Nearly all the workers resigned and took away their termination benefits and the mills was closed. The Petitioners who were directed to be reinstated sent duty reports to the respondent but they came back unserved. They then sent the said reports to Rehmania Textile Mills, Jhang Road, believing that it was the Head Office or a sister concern of the respondents. The said Mills replied that the petitioners were under any misunderstanding and that they were never the employees of Rehmania Textile Mills, Jhang Road. The proprietors and shareholders of the respondents‑Mills, had, after closing the Mills and selling the machinery gone to Multan but no duty reports were sent to them there. The stand of the petitioners is that since Rehmania Textile Mills, Jhang Road is the head office of the respondent and since they had sent their duty reports to the said alleged head office but were not given duty, they are entitled to the wages of the period from the date on which they had sent duty reports upto the date of the lodging of the present petition.

3. The contention of the respondents is that they did not receive any duty reports, that Rehmania Textile Mills, Jhang Road has no connection with them and as the Mills was closed pursuant to a settlement, they are not liable to pay wages of the disputed period. In claim‑statements gratuity etc. have also been included.

4. In support of the case one of the petitioners namely Habib‑Ullah has been examined. He has deposed that after he and the other petitioners were directed to be reinstated in service, they had gone to Mr. Muhammad Siddiq, Manager and asked him to give duty, and he asked them to come after some days so that he could consult Mian Muhammad Rafiq but when they went again, he refused to give them duty and the wages. This version is palpably false. Duty reports were initially sent on the address of the respondents‑Mills and when they came back unserved with the reports that the Mills were lying closed, they were sent to Rehmania Textile Mills, Jhang Road, If the petitioners had before that gone to Mr. Muhammad Siddiq, Manager as deposed by PW‑1 and he had refused to give them duty and wages, they would have sent their duty reports to him on the address of the premises where they had contacted him. They did not send duty reports to him after the ones sent at the address of the respondents Mills had come back unserved and even after they had received applies from Rehmania Textile Mills, Jhang Road that the said Mills had no connection with them. So, what PW‑1 has said about contacting Mr. Muhammad Siddiq is manifestly a concocted story. This assertion too is untrue that they went to Joint Director and that on his asking the Deputy Director summoned Mr. Muhammad Siddiq, Manager but the latter gave the same reply. Which he had already given to the petitioners. Neither the Joint Director nor the Deputy Director was examined in support of this story. This learned representative has cited 1975 PLC 525 wherein it has been held that Rehmania Textile Silk Mills, Sargodha Road (the respondent Mills) and Rehmania Textile Mills, Jhang Road are two units belonging to the same, proprietors. Firstly, the case from which the abovementioned ruling arose was raised much earlier to the date on which the petitioners sent duty reports. In the meantime changes may have taken place due to the closure of the respondent Mills and the Mills at Jhang Road may have become a separate and independent unit and secondly duty reports were to be sent to the employer namely Mr. Siddiq who is, according to the petitioners, the Manager and not another unit of the same proprietor. The Manager had to give duty Sand pay wages and not another unit. Since the petitioners did not submit duty reports to their employer personally or through registered post, they cannot claim wages for the period after they were directed by this Tribunal to be reinstated in service. Since it is not proved that the employer was given duty reports and asked to give duty, the petitioners have no case.

5. The other point argued by the learned representative is that the settlement alleged to have been arrived at between the C.BA and the management is not legal, inasmuch as copies of the settlement were not sent to the Labour Court and the Government. It is merely discretionary to send copies to the Labour Court and the Government. However, sending of copies to the Conciliator is necessary if the settlement has been arrived at without his intervention. This is not the case of the petitioners that the copy was not sent to the Conciliator. The provision to send copies to the Conciliator is necessary because in case the dispute has not been resolved, he has to try for an amicable settlement between the C.BA. and the Management and if the Conciliator fails, he issues a certificate of failure without which the dispute cannot be brought before the Court. 1981 PLC 47 and 1975 PLC 98, therefore, are not helpful to the petitioners.

6. The other point argued is that no permission was obtained under Standing Order 11‑A of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 for closing the Mills, so the closure was illegal. Firstly, this point is no longer relevant to this case since the petitioners failed to submit duty reports to the employer. Even if the closure is not legal, the petitioners cannot derive any benefits. Secondly, since pursuant to the settlement arrived at between the C.BA. and the Management the Mills was closed, such an objection could be taken by the C.BA. or all the workers and not by few persons individually. The taking of permission remained only formal since if application had been given for it permission would not have been opposed as the C.B.A was the concerning party and all the workers had, pursuant to the settlement, given resignations and taken their dues under the settlement. If the petitioners had been in service, they too would have received their benefits under the settlement. So, in view of the above peculiar circumstances, the closure cannot be declared as illegal. The petitioners appear to have been ill‑advised to claim wages alleging that they had asked for duty but were not given. They should have claimed benefits under the settlement and if it had been refused, they could have come to the Court for the same and not for anything more than that. They even now can get benefits of the settlement. Unfortunately the claim‑statements do not contain the break up, so it cannot be determined to what about are entitled as termination benefits under the settlement.

7. As a result, no order for the recovery of the amounts claimed by the petitioners can be issued. However, in order to save the parties from further litigation, the respondent is directed to treat the petitioners like the ones who were paid benefits of termination of services due to the closure of the Mills pursuant to the settlement and they be likewise paid benefits of termination of their services under the said settlement. The petition is disposed of accordingly.

A.E/1506/Lb‑P

Order accordingly.