1. ' Though on 14-4-2005 the Appeals were fixed for hearing of C.M.As. No,756 and 758 of 2005, moved by the Respondents in both theAppeals, respectively, under section 151 P.P.C., praying for release of salary amount having been deposited by the appellant with the Nazir of this Court but when the same was taken up it was, by consent, decided that let the whole appeal, filed under section 47(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance, 2002 against the order passed by Sindh Labour Court No,V., Karachi on 20-11-2004, on is Grievance Petition filed by the Respondent under section. 46 of ,the Ordinance, 2002, be, finally argued and decided.
2. ' Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present appeals, are that the Respondents were employed by the Appellant with effect from 1st July, 1992 as Hustler Operators. According to the averments, made in the appeals, during the month of February, 1998 the Respondents abandoned employment of the Appellant Establishment somewhere in September or October, 1998 but they claimed that their employment was verbally terminated and filed Grievance Petitions before the Sindh Labour Court No,V which were allowed vide order dated 9-8-2002. However, such order was challenged before this Court through Appeals bearing Nos.83 and 84 of 2003, respectively. Which are pending and in said appeals interim relief claimed by the appellant, was granted directing that a bank guarantee should be furnished for an amount of back-benefit which direction has been complied with. It has further been averred that though the said appeals are still pending, the Respondents were reinstated in service but since one of them refused to accept the order of transfer from Karachi to Lahore together with the facts firstly that business of the appellant went to reduction and secondly that from the day the Respondents were reinstated they started to behave with their Employers in a rude attitude, they were again terminated. The Respondents challenged the said termination before the Sindh Labour Court No,V by filing Grievance Petitions which, after recording, of evidence were allowed vide order dated 20-11-2004 and therefore the Appellant has filed these appeals impugning the said order.##TER## ' I have heard Mr. Shahid Anwar Bajwa learned counsel appearing for the Appellant, and Mr. Mujahid Matti, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents.
3. ' It has been contended by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the principal reason for which the employment of the Respondents was terminated was that the work of APL has been shifted to Karachi International Container Terminal and consequently the work of the Organization has been reduced. The factum of shifting of work to Karachi International Container Terminal was not denied by any of the parties. It has, therefore, been contended by the learned counsel that the learned Court below in complete lack of understanding of norms of shipping business has observed that no documentary evidence has been filed stating that APL has shifted its work to Karachi International Container Terminal and if the Court would have acquainted with norms of shipping business, the factum that containerization is present and future of the shipping business is appreciated. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel that since the Respondents have challenged the order of termination, which too was passed on account of their refusal to accept transfer order from Karachi to Lahore and so also for the reason that work for which the Respondents were required to operate APL (American President Line) equipment and maintain it, clean and keep it in order condition has been shifted to Karachi International Container Terminal on account of which it has been reduced, they had to establish that there is no change in the business requirements of the present Appellant. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the Appellant that copy of the said Transfer Order was produced on the file of the Court below along with original OCS Receipt and the admission on the side of the Respondents during cross-examination that an intimation was received about the transfer from Karachi to Lahore supports the fact that said Transfer Order was served. It has, therefore been argued that on account of such contumacious conduct of one of the Respondents was liable to be charged for disobedience of lawful and reasonable orders of the Employer.
4. ' Learned counsel for the Respondent has contended that this appeal does not merit for the reason that the plea of the Appellant with regard to refusal of one of the Respondents to accept the Transfer Order has not been supported with any independent evidence. It has, also been contended that after the reinstatement of the Respondents in compliance of the order of the Court below passed in Grievance Petitions Nos.83 and 84 of 2003, respectively, appeals of which arc pending before this Court, the Respondents were made to sit idle and no work was being assigned to them. He further submits that upon demand by the Respondents with regard- to payment of back-benefit, the Appellant annoyed .And immediately terminated the services of the Respondents. He submitted that no doubt that the Appellant has challenged the earlier decision of the Court below by way of tiling of appeals before this Court but the present Grievance, Applications are the outcome of subsequent termination by the Appellant.
5. ' I have heard and considered the arguments of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of both parties, perused the record and have also gone through the case-law cited as M/s. Hafiz Textile Mills.v Noor Khan and 8 others (1988 PLC 976) and M/s. Balochistan Engineering. Works Ltd., v.
6. Muhammad Salman and others (2003 PLC 330).
7. ' Perusal of the record reveals that the factum of shifting of work to Karachi International Containel Terminal was not denied by any of the parties. The ResPondents, through their Grievance Petitions, challenged the order of termination having been passed on the ground firstly, that one of them refused to accept transfer order from Karachi to Lahore resulting disobedience on his part and secondly, the principal reason for which the employment of the Respondent was terminated was that the work of APL has been shifted to Karachi Internatinal Container Terminal and consequently the work of the Organization has been reduced. In the cross-examination, it has been established that one of Respondents refused to receive the letter with regard to his transfer from Karachi when it was being served personally by the witness while the Respondent was on duty and thereafter it was sent through courier service which, too was refused, copy of the OCS Receipt Corroborates such evidence.
8. In these circumstances, I am of the considered view that the Appellant has been able to make out a good, prima facie, case where it can be held that When an employee disobeys the orders of the Employer in respect of his transfer, no option is left for the Employer but to terminate him and further for the reason that work for which the Respondents were required to operate APL (American President Line) equipment and maintain it clean and keep it in ordered condition which has been shifted to Karachi International Container Terminal on account of which it has satisfactorily been proved to be reduced.
9. ' Accordingly these appeals are allowed and the order, dated 20-11-2004. Passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No,V is set aside.
10. Resultantly; the Appellant is allowed to withdraw the. Amount so deposited with the Nazir of this Court payable to the Respondents in view of the order passed, as above.
11. ' Labour Appeals Nos.425 and 426 of 2004 stand disposed of along with listed-applications.