WORKERS' UNION Versus SIND G. OIL MILLS

DECISION

The applicant-Union has filed this application under section 34 of I. R. O. for their guaranteed rights of re-employment of 15 retrenched workers. According to the applicant Union, the respondents had closed their factory on 18-4-1974, and retrenched the entire staff on 27-9-1974. However, the respondents again put the Mill into operation but employed new workers ignoring the previously retrenched staff comprising of 15 workers who happened to be the office-bearers and members of the Union, against the provisions of section 14 of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employ ment Standing Orders Ordinance.

The respondents in their Reply Statement have denied the assertions of the applicants showing that the 15 workers mentioned in the application were not their employees at all, and that the applicant-Union is not the Collective Bargaining Agent. The respondents further show that since they had built the Mill they had not operated the same, but they had been leasing it out to other parties through agreements. On 1st July 1972, they had given it on hire to Messrs Islamia Oil Producers for two years, and further after the expiry of the Islamia Oil Producers they had leased it out to Messrs Asif Oil Company who was running the Mill. According to them they have neither retrenched the 15 workers, nor those workers were in their employment at any time.

The parties had filed their Affidavits-in-evidence and were cross-examined by their respective representatives.

The respondents have refused to admit that 15 workers shown in the application had ever been in their employment at any time. The General Secretary of the Union has, however, produced his own Identity Card bearing the rubber stamp of Sind G. Oil Mills in support of the contention that he and other workers were in the employment of Sind G. Oil Mills. But 1 find no force in this contention, The applicant-Union has not produced any other worker nor any other proof of employment in the respondent-Mill. Mere possession of the-Identity Card does not mean the proof of employment.

The Manager of the respondent-Mill in his cross-examination has shown that 15 workers who were working in their Mills were employees of Islamia Oil Producers and after the lease to Islamia Oil Producers were completed all of them had collected their dues in full and final settlement of their claims and resigned from service Mr. Tayabji partner of Islamia Oil Producers has filed his affidavit-in-evidence in which he showed that they had taken res pondent Oil Mills on lease, and the 15 workers were recruited by them, and after agreement expired, these 15 workers collected their dues in full and final settlement of their claims and resigned from service. These facts are also admitted by the General Secretary of the Union in his cross-examination by stating that he and 14 other workers had resigned from service of Islamia Oil Producers and had executed the receipts of the amount in full and final settlement of their claims.

Now the question is whether the 15 workers having been resigned from service of Islamia Oil Producers can still continue to be the employees of Sind G. Oil Mills. Beyond only the Identity Card produced by the General Secretary of his own, there is no other evidence to that effect. This Identity Card is also a duplicate copy which bears only the rubber stamp of Sind G. Oil Mills. There is no other proof that this was issued by the respondent-Mill or that 15 workers were the employees of the respondent Mill. In the column of signature of employers, name of Majid Ismail is written. The applicant-Union has not been able to show that Majid Ismail has any connections with Sind G. Oil Mills. From the side of the respondent-Mill one Ahsan Ahmed, the Manager has filed the affidavit in which he had flatly denied that they had issued this Identity Card or that they had employed the 15 workers. On the contrary they have produced evidence that they bad never taken us of the Mill at any time which has been operated by the different leases. They have also produced the photostat copies of three agreements which they had entered into, with the leases since the year 1971 when they had established the Mill. I, therefore find no proof on record to show that the 15 workers were the employees of the respondents. But there is ample evidence to prove that they were employees of Islamia Oil Producers who were the lessees of the respondent Mill, and after the lease of Islamia Oil Producers was over, these workers had collected their dues and resigned from service. There is also no evidence that respondents had closed the Mill and re-started it again.

Section 14 of the Standing Orders Ordinance provides that when a work man is retrenched and the employer proposes to take in his employment any person within a period of one year from the date of such retrenchment, he shall give opportunity to the retrenched workman, but in the present case there is no evidence that the 15 workers were retrenched from service by the respondent. The fact is that after the lease of Islamia Oil Producers ended, they themselves had resigned from service.

It will not be out of way to mention here that there were only 15 workmen working in the Mill as such the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance are not applicable to it. I, therefore, hold that the application is not maintainable, hence dismissed.