DECISION ' This case started its journey as for back as 11th April, 2000 when application was moved on behalf of Shandadkot Textile Mills praying therein for permission to close down the Mill as it was running in heavy losses. At that time a total number of workers engaged in the Mill were about 189. The Labour Union which was made party i.e, respondent in the case was issued Notice to which it submitted its reply denying the Statement of the Management that they were running in losses. But at the same time the Union took stand that if the Mill is closed all the workers will become unemployed and more over they were not responsible for the losses sustained by the Mill. Thereafter evidence was led by both the parties. The Management filed Affidavit-in-Evidence of Abdul Hakim, Incharge Litigation and on behalf of the Union Ghulam Ali Shah, General Secretary filed his Affidavit-in- Evidence. They were also cross-examined. It is important to note that in course of cross- examination the Union's witness Ghulam All Shah made a frank admission that the Management has suffered losses to the tune of Rs,82 Crores. Some documents were also produced by the parties and afterhearing the arguments of both parties learned counsel, Labour Court announced its judgment dismissing the application for closure of the Mill.
2. It may be mentioned here that prior to filing of the case in the Labour Court the Management struck a formula known as Golden Hand Shake and Voluntary Retirement Scheme. It started making payment to the workers in accordance with that formula of course to the workers who were willing to accept the Golden Hand Shake. A number of the workers were paid according to that formula. After litigation had started in all as many as 39 workers who had accepted the formula of Golden Hand Shake Scheme were made payment. As regards remaining workers the Management filed Revision Application against the order of Labour Court in this Tribunal. These who had not received payment in accordance with the said formula started contesting the Revision Application.
On perusal of the case diary the impression was created that though they had been contesting the Revision Application yet they did not appear to be serious and very much interested. After filing of Vakalatnama by the Union, the case has been adjourned (sic) formal as on one adjournment the Advocate of respondents filed Vakalatnama and on another adjournment Court was on leave. For the remaining dates of hearing the respondents had remained absent and so also their Advocate without intimation to the Court and without moving any application for adjournment. Thus it is clear that they were not interested. There can be other reason also for their lack of interest. It is an admitted position that the factory has been closed and they are no longer in service. There is no indication direct or indirect from' the Management's side that there was possibility of revival of the factory and reinstatement of the workers in service. This can also be the reason why they seem to have been dishearted and are not pursuing the case as vigilantly as they should. In these circumstances I see no reason to prolong the proceeding just to please the respondents workers.
So for financial aspect of the case is concerned, the Management has already made payment to all other workers except the workers contesting the case in accordance with said formula. The learned Advocate of the Management Mr. Masood Ahmed Khan shows his willingness to make similar payment to the respondents if they are willing to accept and collect their dues.
3. Thus it is clear that the Management has admittedly suffered huge losses and therefore they are unlikely to re-open the factory and reinstate the workers. The learned counsel of applicant- Management states that there is no provision in law by which the Management can be compelled to re-start its factory despite the losses it has been suffering. As such there is no question of the factory being re-opened and consequently the workers be re-employed. The only alternative left to the workers, in my opinion is to accept the payment in accordance with that formula of Golden Hand Shake as has been paid to the other workers. Consequently I .Do not see justification to prolong the proceedings unnecessarily waiting indefinitely particularly when the respondents are not keen to attend the case on every hearing. This is because they have been frequently absenting from the Court without intimation and without seeking adjournment.
For the above reasons I do not endorse the decision of learned Labour Court which is obviously not supported by reliable evidence. On the contrary it was within the knowledge of the learned Labour Court that Management was running in heavy losses which reason alone was sufficient to grant permission to the Management for closure of the factory. Accordingly I accept the Revision filed by Management against the order of learned Labour Court with direction that Management will be bound to make payment to the workers involved in this case in accordance with formula of Golden Hand Shake as the payment has been made to the other workers, provided they have approached the Management for making such payment. Revision Application stands disposed of.