JAN MUHAMMAD Versus PROPRIETOR, MESSRS AMREEN GLASS BANGLES INDUSTRIES, HYDERABAD

DECISION

This is an appeal against the order of learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No. VI at Hyderabad, dated 6-1-1991, whereby grievance petition filed by the appellants was dismissed.

2. I have heard Mr. Rana Mahmood Ali Khan, learned representative for the appellants and Mr. Hamid Hussain, learned Advocate for the respondents and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.

3. The appellants were admittedly workmen working with the respondents. Their services were first terminated on 12-8-1986 against which they filed grievance petition, which was allowed by the learned Labour Court, but in appeal filed by-the respondents the appeal was allowed on 3-11-1987 and dismissal order of the appellant was maintained. However, due to the order of the learned Labour Court reinstating the appellants in service the appellants were reinstated in service from 7-7-1987 but their services were again terminated vide termination order, dated 22-9-1987. All the appellants received similar termination orders one of which is reproduced as under:--

"You are well-aware that due to disconnection of Gas Supply, financial and trade crisis and because of differences cropped up between the partners, no production in the Factory is being made since August, 1986.

In the circumstances, the lay off cannot be continued for further indefinite period.

For the above reasons, your services are hereby terminated with immediate effect.

You are advised to settle your legal dues at any time, including the adjustment of loan amount advanced to you during your service in the estt:

You are further informed that an appeal against your reinstatement has been filed and the Hon'ble Labour Appellate Tribunal has granted stay with regard to payment of back benefits."

4. Mr. Hamid Hussain contended that this termination order was passed under Standing Order 11(3) which reads as under:---

"11(3). In cases where workmen are laid off on account of failure of plant, a temporary curtailment of production or any stoppage of work for reasons mentioned in clause (1), they shall be paid by the employer an amount equal to one-half of their daily wages during the first fourteen days of lay-off as compensation. When, however, the workmen have to be laid off for an indefinite period beyond the above-mentioned fourteen days, their services may be terminated after giving them due notice or pay in lieu thereof."

5. Even if the argument of Mr. Hamid Hussain is accepted that there was indefinite lay7off and, therefore, employer had right to terminate the services of the appellants under the above provision of law, still this termination contemplated under this subsection would be termination of all the workman who had been laid-off and not of selected workers. Admittedly at the relevant time sixty or seventy workers were working, out of which only services of present seven appellants were terminated. This subsection cannot be read in isolation with the other provisions of the Standing Orders. The employer was probably feeling difficulty m terminating services of all the employees because of the ban contained under Standing Order 11-A against the termination of more than fifty per cent of the workmen without the prior permission of the Labour Court. Similarly where there is selective termination of service, it would not be the simple and pure whim of the employer to terminate services of such workers which he may choose, but in such case his choice is limited by Standing Order 13 which provides that where any workman is to be retrenched the employer shall retrench the workman who is last person employed. Mr. Muhammad Yamin, the employer has admitted in the cross-examination that he did not terminate the services of the appellants in accordance with the order of seniority. Therefore this order of termination of services is violative of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 and is not tenable.

6. However the services of the appellants stood terminated on 3-11-19871 when this Tribunal in appeal set aside the order of reinstatement by the learned Labour Court and maintained their order of first dismissal. This order of Tribunal has attained finality and this Tribunal in this appeal cannot order reinstatement of the appellants after 3-11-1987. However the appellants would be deemed to be in services from the date of termination of service from 22-9-1987 to 3-11-1987 and are entitled to receive all the dues admissible to them upto that date. The respondent is directed to pay the dues as above to the appellants within two months.

???????????

7. ? The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

H.B.T./1959/Lb. S ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.