TELEPHONE INDUSTRIES OF PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI Versus WASEEM AHMED

DECISION

This appeal by Telephone Industries of Pakistan is directed against the order of Vth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi allowing 20 applications of Telephone workers filed under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. for re‑instatement in service.

The facts of the case in brief are, that 20 workers had joined the Telephone Industries of Pakistan from 1976 to 1985 as mechanics, technicians and Technical Assistants. The services of these workers were terminated about the year 1989 although they had worked on the average for six or seven years each, and they claimed to be permanent workers. Being aggrieved the workers filed their grievance petitions in the 1st Sindh Labour Court, Karachi which declared the applicants to be permanent workmen and ordered their re instatement in service with full back benefits, under an order dated 7‑3‑1993. The appeal against the said order dismissed by the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal by an order dated 31‑10‑1993. The workers were to be reinstated within 15 days of the original order. The Manager of the Telephone Industries on 21‑3‑1993 on the last date by which the workers were to be re‑instated, recorded the following order and served it on each and every worker who was required to be re‑instated by orders of the Labour Court. It is reproduced here in extense:

"We are aggrieved of the order dated 7‑3‑1993 passed by the Sindh Labour Court No. 1, Karachi allowing your both the cases. Against the said order we have preferred an appeal before the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal.

Subject to the final outcome and the legal remedies available to us against the impugned order dated 7‑3‑1993, you are re‑instated in service with effect from 7‑3‑1993.

However, we regret to inform you that the job (Installation of EMD Exchanges) for which you used to be engaged against temporary nature of work from time to time being not available, your services are therefore hereby terminated with immediate effect on payment of one month's wages in lieu of notice.

Yours faithfully,

(Sd.)

Manager, Planning and Installation Tip,

KTR, Karachi.

2. This order in the form of a letter, shows that the Telephone Industries communicated to each of these workers that they were not pleased with the order of reinstatement by the Labour Court. They however conditionally reinstated workers but at the same time by another stroke of pen informed the workers that their services after reinstatement were again terminated with immediate effect on payment of one month's wages in lieu of notice as the job of installation of exchanges was no longer available.

3. The workers accordingly preferred their grievance petitions before the Sindh Labour Court No. V, Karachi. The learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that "the applicants had already been declared to be permanent workmen and that they were appointed as technicians and not for any particular job or any particular system; that their work still existed. Their services were not therefore legally terminated." The learned Labour Court accordingly ordered all the applicant workers to be reinstated in service with full back benefits within 15 days. Against this order the Telephone Industries have preferred this appeal.

4. The contention of the learned Advocate for the appellant is that them services of the workman were terminated under section 13 of the Standing Orders on account of retrenchment, it has on the other hand been pointed out by Mr. A.M. Jeelani for the workmen that the Telephone Company even after the order of termination has appointed new workers in the same category. By way of illustration two letters of appointment dated 20‑1‑1986 have been exhibited, in respect of appointment of one Nayyar Iqbal in the post of Installation Mechanic‑1, and another letter for appointment of Shamim Akhtar. This clearly shows that the requirements of Standing Order 13 of the Standing Orders were not complied with and the last persons employed in the category had not been retrenched under Standing Order 13. The very order of re instatement and termination reproduced above would show that the Telephone Company had scant regard for the order of the Labour Court, which was a final order, and the language used in the body of the letter is clearly in the nature of contempt of the lawful orders passed by the Labour Court. The Telephone Company openly disobeyed the direction of the Labour Court by re‑instatement and retrenchment order passed in the same breath. The order of the Labour Court is accordingly maintained and the appeal of the Telephone Industries is dismissed.

H.B.T./2501/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.