GUL ZAMAN Versus NAGARIA TEXTILE MILLS (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI

DECISION

The circumstances in which this appeal has been filed briefly stated are‑as under:‑

2. The appellant was working as a Jobber with the respondent Mill. His services were terminated sometime in 1982 and his petition before the Labour Court and the appeal before the Tribunal were dismissed. But he persued the matter and having been reinstated reported for duty on 24‑10‑1989.

3. It is alleged by the appellant that he was assigned no work but all the same he was paid in full for 10 months when his services were once again terminated on 28‑8‑1990. The reason given in the letter of termination was that the respondent Mill had installed very sophisticated machinery which needed skilled and educated labour. The Jobbers' job had been abolished and Supervisors had been appointed in their places.

4. The appellant having settled the preliminaries filed the petition before the Labour Court No.4, Karachi alleging that he had been victimised. The reply of the respondent was that for the last 10 years or so the appellant had not been in touch with his work and had not cared to handle the latest machines. The job of the Supervisors had been advertised in the papers and the old jobbers who gave satisfaction were also re‑employed as Supervisors. There is a specific mention, and it is admitted by the appellant that he had not applied, as he could not take advantage of the invitation, because of the pendency of the dispute.

5. Apart from himself the appellant examined one Suleman as his witness. Javed Iqbal Choudhry was examined on behalf of the respondent.

6. Suleman the witness examined on behalf of the respondent supports the version of the respondent. He admits that the machinery were newly installed and that the management had given the option to the old workers to apply for the jobs if they could operate the latest machinery. He says that he did apply and was given appointment on 5‑9‑1990.

7. The invitation to the old Jobbers has been admitted by the appellant himself in the cross‑examination. He further owned that some of the people who had lost the job had been reappointed. He however added that he did not apply for it because of the pendency of his case. Demonstrably he is wrong to assert that. The notice published in the Daily Jang has been brought on the record. It is said to be dated 30‑7‑1990. The date is not clearly made out in the photostat copy but the contents of the notice clearly indicated that the applications for appointment had to reach the office by the 15th of August. There was no dispute pending at that time.

8. The perusal of the circumstances referred to above unmistakably supports the respondent's version in its entirety. The Court order had been fully implemented and the respondents did not dispense with his services for 10 months. And when they did it, it was for reasons with which no fault can be found.

9. In the case of termination simpliciter, the only grounds in which Courts can interfere would be if any mala fides was alleged and substantiated, or there was a colourable exercise of office (See Sikandar Hayat v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal 1991 PLC 508 and Abdul Hameed Kiranvi v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal etc; 1990 PLC 213).

10. Mr. Mirza Muhammad Kazim has referred me to a judgment of this Tribunal being M/s. Treland Textile Mills Limited v. Ghulam Ahmed reported in 1992 PLC 358. I am afraid this does not support him because mala fides were clearly made out in the, precedent case. The petitioner there, was reinstated on 31‑12‑1989 and was removed only 10 days later on the ground of re‑organisation. It was further found therein that the alleged re‑organistion did not have any nexus with the petitioner's services..

11. In the light of the view I have, taken no exception can be taken to the impugned order. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

H.B.T./2074/Lb.S ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.