PAKISTAN OXYGEN LIMITED, KARACHI Versus ANWARUL HAQUE
DECISION
These three appeals which I propose to dispose of by a common order, call in question the order of reinstatement of the petitioners passed by the Labour Court at Karachi.
2. The circumstances giving rise to the dispute, in the words of the petitioners in brief are, that they were permanent workmen to the establishment of the respondent for a number of years and their services came to be abruptly terminated by letters, dated 16‑4‑1987.
3. The version as submitted by the respondents in the Written Reply was to the effect that all these petitioners were employed as "Machinist Turret Lathe Operators" in the Light Engineering Department of the Company as Grade‑IV Workmen. The demand for the products of the Light Engineering Section persistently declining, the jobs of as many as 12 workmen had become a redundant towards the end of 1984. But they were retained on their own pay and emoluments though they were switched on to jobs of lower grade with lesser pay. The respondents hoped that the conditions would improve in due course of time, however as the events proved that did not materialize. Since the matters went on from bad to worse for a period of two years, the respondents once again offered to these petitioners some other permanent jobs other than their jobs of Machinist Turret Lathe Operators. Nine out of the twelve persons, who were surplus, had accepted the offer but the three present petitioners declined. It was under these circumstances that the respondent were left with no alternative but to terminate their services.
4. The petitioners were their own witness while Mr. Asif Rizvi, Manufacturing Manager appeared on behalf of the respondent. It might as well be mentioned that an affidavit of one Mustafa Ashraf, Production Managed had also been filed but as he was not made available for cross‑examination lie same has been excluded from consideration.
5. The evidence furnished by the three petitioners is of an identical nature. All of them deny that there was any offer of alternate appointment made to them at all. However all of them conceded that they were Machinist Turret Lathe Operators working in Grade‑IV, which is the highest cadre of a workman, and for about two years or more were working in different capacities as Visual Inspectors, Lead Packers and Packers. On their own showing the job of a Packer was in Grade‑I, that of Lead Packer in Grade‑II and that of Visual Inspector in Grade‑III. On their own showing they were doing all these jobs for two years but I am of the opinion that it was from 1984 as alleged by the appellants. Be that as it may, admittedly the Light Engineering workers had two shifts when they were working there and further there used to be overtime employment also under the New Incentive Scheme, but since their departure from there, there was only one shift working. They have also shown their ignorance about any worker in the Light Engineering department was now getting any overtime allowance.
6. It is alleged that they had come to harm because of their Trade Union activities, but Jamil Ahmed and Ghulam Ahmed Jamal had never held any office in the Union. Only Anwarul Haque, has stated that he ‑ was a shop steward, but that was not mentioned by him any where earlier, either in the grievance notice or the grievance petition. It is no body's case that any one had any ill-will against them. They also conceded that nine out of the twelve persons, who were found to be surplus in 1987, had been absorbed by the respondent permanently even now. It is also admitted by the appellant that there was no one junior to them working in the Light Engineering Department. They denied the receipt of the offer referred to earlier. It is true that it was not sent through registered cover, but the circumstances belie them.
7. The anxiety of the appellants to absorb the respondents is transparently made out, though there was loss to the management in the bargain. There is no law compelling an employer to keep a worker or number of workers on their pay roll when they have become redundant. The appellants were ill‑advised not to take advantage of the offer. It was a case of termination simpliciter and all that the law requires is that the employer should clearly mention the reasons for the parting of their services. That was done. If there is no evidence of victimisation or mala tide and no other person had been employed to replace a displaced worker no fault can be found with a decision taken by the management. (See M/s. Bayer Pharma Ltd. v. Mirza Hassan Akhtar 1981 PLC 24, Pakistan Cables Employees Union v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and others 1981 PLC 589, Muhammad Sirajuddin v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and another 1983 PLC 1286, Sikandar Hayat v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and others 1991 PLC 598).
8. In the light of the foregoing observations the impugned judgment is unsustainable. I will therefore set it aside and allow the appeals.
H.B.T./2119/Lb.S ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeals allowed.