SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J. - This single order will decide Labour Appeals Nos. L.A. 427/2004, titled "Salamat Ali v. Fouji Sugar Mills, etc" L.A. 428/2004 titled "Atiq-ur- Rehman v. Fouji Sugar Mills, etc", L.A. 429/2004, titled "Zahoor Ahmad v. Fouji Sugar Mills, etc." and L.A. 430/2004, titled "Muhammad Javed v. Fouji Sugar Mills, etc." as common questions of law and fact are involved in all the above appeals.
2. Brief facts for disposal of the above appeals are that the appellants were working in the respondent sugar mills and were assigned various duties. The appellants have filed these appeals separately, in their individual capacity against the order dated 28.7.2004 passed by respondent No. 4 (Labour Court) wherein the present appellants were not the party.
3. Respondent No. 1 filed an application before the Punjab Labour Court-III, Lahore under Section 11- A of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, read with Section 33 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, stating therein that due to several operational breakdowns, substandard production, marketing problems and sale of sugar at low price, the project has not become economic and viable and suffers losses. Detail of year-wise loss and liabilities was provided. The respondent No. 2 (Fauji Sugar Mills, Employees Union), who was CBA Union contested the said application, filed written statement and raised various preliminary objections as to the competence of the application. The C.B.A. Union subsequently entered into a compromise, which was reduced into writing and signed by CBA Union as well the Company. The agreement was filed in the Court as Ex.C-1, which was signed by almost all the workers including the office bearers of the C.B.A. Union. The workers ultimately collected their dues and additional payments. The learned Labour Court allowed the applicant to close down its mill on 28.7.2004, as there was no objection in this respect by the CBA Union.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are aggrieved of the order passed by the Labour Court and that the appeal in individual capacity, against the said order, is competent. The appellants sought the condonation of delay, in filing the appeal by way of application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and submitted that they had the knowledge of the impugned order on 23.2.2004 and thereafter they moved these appeals keeping in view the period of limitation running from the date of knowledge of the impugned order. The learned counsel submits that the closure of the factory was mala fide and was aimed at to deprive the unwanted union workers from jobs. The learned counsel filed a copy of daily "cane crushing summary" as Annex-E, with the appeal, to prove, that the factory is functioning at present. The learned counsel submitted that the order in mala fide, does not qualify the conditions of Section 11-A of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, the workers were not made party and impugned order was passed without recording evidence, hence the Labour Court was wrong to allow the closure.
5. Heard learned counsel for the appellants at length and examined the record.
6. There is no bar against the appellants to assail the impugned, order in appeal as aggrieved person, despite not a party to proceedings before the lower forum. The only requirement is that he must be aggrieved by such order. Reference in this respect can be made to the following case law:--
(1) Muhammad Hanif, etc. v. Lai Khan, etc. (2000 YLR 469).
(2) Mahmood-ur-Rehman v. Atta Ullah Atta, etc. (PLD 1998 SC (AJ&K) 1).
(3) H.M. Saya & Co. v. Wazir AH Industries Ltd. And others (PLD 1969 SC 65).
7. It is admitted fact that the factory/mills (respondent No. 1) was allowed to be closed down by the Labour Court on 28.7.2004 as a result of compromise between the CBA Union and the employer.
The appellants had the remedy for the redressal of their grievance by invoking the provisions of Section 46 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002. The appellant had the remedy to serve upon the employee notice under Section 46, but no notice in writing, was served by the appellants to the employer or to its agent within the stipulated period of one month from the date of grievance. The appellants remained silent and have not agitated the matter within one month as provided under law. The appeals under reference are also not within the period of limitation and there is no explanation about the fact that how the appellants came to know about the impugned order. On the other hand, the settlement arrived at between the C.B.A, and management is binding on the dissenting workers. The impugned order dated 28.7.2004 reveals that Ex.C-1 was filed and signed by almost all the workers. The settlement so arrived at between the employer and the employee and dully recorded by the Court is not open to any scrutiny subsequently, in this view I find support from the decision of Supreme Court of India reported in 1981 Volume-ll, Labour Law Journal p. 429. The relevant part is reproduced as under:-- "where a settlement has been accepted by vast majority of their workmen with their eyes open and accepted by them it must be presumed to be a fair and not liable to be ignored merely because a small number of workers are not prepared to accept the settlement."
8. The appellants are bound by the decision of the learned Labour Court, which was passed as a result of settlement between the CBA Union and employer. The appellants, have not agitated the matter in terms of Section 46 and have not appealed against the order within stipulated period without sufficiently explaining the delay.
9. The above appeals are without merit and dismissed in limine.