ABDUL MANNAN Versus EVERGREEN INDUSTRIES, KARACHI

DECISION

This appeal from the order of the Labour Court dismissing the grievance application of the appellant under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. has arisen in the following circumstances.

2. The petitioner professed to have been working as a `Winder' with the respondents since 1982. He was laid off from 28‑2‑1989 to 30‑3‑1989 with some breaks, and was orally informed on 21‑3‑1989, that his services were required no more. It has, however, been asserted that the respondent had sent a communication to the appellant at the address duly supplied by the latter, to the effect, that as the company was export‑oriented and as the demand from abroad had slackened down, and huge quantities of garments were lying for long, it was closing down the "Juki Stitching" section of the male workers. He was further informed that he could collect his legal dues on any working day from the factory office.

3. The petitioner had served a grievance notice which was replied to and it was followed by the presentation of the grievance application before the Labour Court.

4. In the reply statement, apart from the legal objection raised, the respondent reiterated the tale of woes as referred to earlier. Things were bad enough according to them, and there being no chance of improvement in the immediate future, they had been constrained to dispense with the services of a Section of the Workers. They had done the best to retain the workers, as long as they could afford, and that is why there were periods of lay‑off but there was no ray of hope thereafter as well. A letter was duly communicated through a registered letter to the petitioner clearly expressing the reason why they were parting. The letter was not accepted. All that is on the record.

5. The petitioner was his own witness and Mr. Sabir Hussain, the Factory Manager, appeared on behalf of the respondents.

6. The retrenchment of the appellant was under Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial & Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 and the only requirement was that the reason of the termination of the employment must be explicitly given in the letter of termination. All this was clearly done and Sabir Hussain has backed up the state of the finances of the company with a heap of papers which are on the record. No fault worth the name has been attempted to be found therein.

7. It is true there was some agitation among the workers but that is after the retrenchment and there is nothing to suggest that the termination in question was mala fide or in colourable exercise of powers. There is nothing appearing on the record to differ from the conclusion reached by the Labour Court.

8. I will, therefore, uphold the order and dismiss the appeal.

H.B.T./2105/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.