INDUSTRIAL CLOTHINGS (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI Versus MUHAMMAD ISMAIL

DECISION

This appeal calls in question the order of the Labour Court reinstating the petitioner in service under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. It arose in the following circumstances.

2. The petitioner was appointed by the respondent as a helper electrician on 16‑5‑1987 and his services came to be terminated verbally on 21‑12‑1988. He had filed a petition against his ouster from service, which came to be allowed by the order of the Labour Court dated 17‑10‑1990, with full back benefits, and an appeal before this Tribunal also came to be dismissed.

3. As a result of the order referred to above the petitioner came to be reinstated in service but had no work assigned to him. After a few months of such co‑existence the services of the petitioner once again came to be terminated on 11‑4‑1991 in writing on the ground that they did not need the services of a "sole electrician helper".

4. The petitioner sent a grievance notice and later filed the petition before the Labour Court which came to be resisted by the present appellant.

5. The petitioner was his own witness and S. Ibne Hassan the Personnel Officer of the appellant appeared on behalf of the management.

6. The Labour Court found that the termination was in colourable exercise of power as there was nothing to show that there was any decision of the Board of Directors in regard to the abolition of the post of the electrician helper. It is this order which is challenged here.

7. The respondent had on his own showing worked only in the capacity of electrician helper. He could not operate as an electrician for want of a due licence from the authorities.

8. It was stated by the respondent that he had been thrown out by the appellant, though they had recruited three persons later on. He named them only before the Labour Court, being Muhammad Ashraf, Muhammad Hafeez and Manzoor Raza. However, he admitted in cross‑examination that Muhammad Ashraf was attached to the Workshop; Hafeez was working as. electrician and that Manzoor Raga was appointed as a sewing helper. He also could not say as to when these three persons had been appointed, whether before the termination of his service or later.

9. Ibne Hassan has produced the letter of their appointments alongwith his affidavit‑in‑evidence. Muhammad Ashraf, however, had resigned from his job. He has also mentioned about' some "modification" of a machinery and stated that they had no job left for a helper, with the result that they had kept the respondent sitting there without any work for a number of months. This position is also admitted by the respondent himself who has complained that he had been kept seated as a prisoner for a number of months, without any allocation of work, till his services were once again terminated.

10. It has not been even mooted out by the respondent that there was any work with the appellant where he could make any useful contribution while he remained with them after reinstatement. They had been regular to make due payments while they retained him. They could get some work. There is also nothing on the record to show that there was any special grudge of any sort which the appellants had to feed fed. They had parted company with the respondent earlier and suffered discomfiture because of a legal flaw. The termination was verbal. This time they have given the reason for it and the reason may not be after all without validity. The learned Presiding Officer observed that there was no resolution from the Board of Directors to abolish the post. There is no such requirement of law and it was only a minor decision involved. There was no restructuring of the entire establishment or introducing changes entailing any serious consequence.

11. A worker can be retrenched, if surplus. He will not hang around the neck of an employer like an albatross. The intentions were very clear earlier also and now they have given explicit reason. The action appears to be free of any taint, or prejudice or in colourable exercise of office. In this view of the matter the appellant's action is beyond reproach. Sec Sikandar Hayat v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal 1991 PLC 508 and Gulzaman v. M/s. Nagaria Textile Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi 1993 PLC 73.

12. In the result, I will set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.

H.B.T./21789/Lb.S

Appeal allowed.

????????????