DECISION This judgment will dispose of 19 Appeals bearing Nos. HYD-356 to 374/77 filed by the appellant, the Textile Corporation of Pakistan Ltd., Hyderabad against 19 workers employed in the aforesaid corporation and these matters arise in this way.
2. These 19 workers with others were in the permanent employment of the appellants corporation at Hyderabad. It appears that in the third week of January, 1975 these workers approached the Management with a request that as in that year the 9th day of Moharram was to fall on the 22nd January, 1975, that day may be declared as a holiday and in return for this the workers would come to work on the 6th September, 1975 which has always been declared a public holiday in Pakistan.
But, the Management refused this request of their workers and pasted a notice on the notice board announcing that the 22nd January, 1975 could not be declared as a holiday for their mill.
Nevertheless, the workers stayed away from work on that day after having held a meeting on the previous day, viz., the 21st January, 1975, at which speeches were made by the present 19 respondents inciting their co-workers to go on strike on the 22nd January, 1975. The next two days, viz. 23rd and the 24th January. 1975 were public holidays and the Management declared a lock-out as from the 25th January, 1975 which continued for a whole month. The respondent workers then filed an application under section 34 of the I. R. O., 1969 before the VIth Sind Labour Court at Hyderabad for declaring the lock-out as illegal, but this Court passed an order holding the strike as illegal and the lock-out as legal and directing the appellants to open their mills immediately.
Against this order the respondents filed an appeal in the then High Court of Sind & Baluchistan at Karachi being Constitutional Writ Petition No. 200 of 1975 which was decided on 29th January, 1976.
The learned High Court Judge reached the conclusion that "the decision of the Labour Court that it was a case of illegal strike is obviously erroneous. It was, in fact, a case of unauthorized absence from duty for one day for which the second respondent (the Management) would have been justified in deducting the wages of the workers for the day on which they remained absent." The Management then went in appeal against this judgment to the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 28-R of 1975 securing an interim stay order. But on 5th October, 1976 a full Bench of this Court presided over by the then Chief Justice, Mr. Muhammad Yaqub Ali while granting leave to appeal as prayed declined to confirm the interim stay order. The Full Bench of the Supreme Court went on "to direct the petitioner to pay its workmen the wages due to them from the day the lock-out was declared to the day it was removed. This appeal is still pending final hearing before the Supreme Court. The Management then issued charge-sheets to these 19 respondent workers on 10th February, 1977 for instigating the strike on 22nd January, 1975. A domestic inquiry was held resulting in a report recommending the dismissal of these 19 workers who were dismissed by the appellants from their service. These 19 workers then approached the VIth Sind Labour Court at Hyderabad with these 19 petitions under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969 and that Court was pleased to allow all the 19 applications and also to direct re-instatement of the applicants with all back benefits. These present appeals are directed against this order.
3. I have heard Mr. Ghulam Shah, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents.
4. It has been urged before me that the Management of the appellant---Mill faithfully complied with all the formalities required by the Labour Laws before terminating the services of these 19 respondents. It has also been contended by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that the learned Labour Court No. VI has erred in relying very heavily 'on and in basing its order entirely upon the judgment of a Single Judge of the High Court in Constitutional Petition No. 200 of 1975. It was pointed out that the facts of the High Court Writ Petition were not the same as those before the Court that passed the impugned order and further that this Sind Labour Court No. VI has erred in writing one single judgment covering 19 separate applications under section 25-A, I.
R. O. Finally, Mr. Ghulam Shah, Advocate contended that the lower Court has erred in granting back benefits in full to these 19 respondents which, he said, for a period of 28 months would extend to Rs.
3,00,000. He relied upon a judgment of Mr. Justice Inamullah, reported in 1975 PLC 70 where his Lordship allowed back benefits only for a period of 5 months because of the delay in the disposal of that case.
5. I have carefully considered these arguments of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant which were answered by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents and I must frankly state that I am not impressed by the arguments of Mr. Ghulam Shah on behalf of the appellant. The mere fact that his client had complied with all legal formalities as required under the Labour Laws before dispensing with the services of the respondents cannot warrant or justify such an order of dismissal when in the opinion of the High Court of Sind there was no strike on 22nd January, 1975, but at most it amounted to an irregularity entitling the Management to deduct the workers' wages for that day. It has also been pointed out by Mr. Rizvi appearing' on behalf of the respondents that the Inquiry Officer, one Mr. Abro appointed by the Management was a witness in the inquiry against two of the present respondents, viz., Mehboob Ali, respondent No.1 and Rafiuddin, respondent No. 2. Thus a witness against some of the respondents cannot serve as an Inquiry Officer against the other respondents thereby questioning his impartiality. Nor can it be maintained that the facts before the High Court when deciding Writ Petition) No. 200 of 1975 differ from the facts of the case resulting in the impugned order. Both matters arise out of the same set of facts and, as Mr. Rizvi has contended, the main points for consideration) were whether there was a strike on 22nd January, 1975 and whether the respondents can be held responsible for promoting this strike. The learned High Court cute to the conclusion that it could not be said that there was a strike do 22nd January, 1975 and it was argued by Mr. Rizvi that the Supreme Court of Pakistan in vacating the interim stay order and in directing that payment of wages be made by the Management to the workers from the day the lock-out was declared to the day it was removed, may also be said to be of the same view, viz., that there was no strike on 22nd January, 1975.
6. There remains for consideration the last point urged by the learned Advocate of the appellant concerning the order of the lower Court granting back benefits to these respondent workers. Mr. Rizvi has invited my attention to a judgment of the Sind High Court, reported in 1977 PLC 162 where it has been held that a Labour Court while directing re-instatement of a workman has coupled with this the duty to order con--sequential benefits and an order of re-instatement with a direction for non-payment of benefits is an order without jurisdiction. Mr. Rizvi has further pointed out that the Advocate for the appellant in the cross---examination of these workers did not put a single question to them as to whether they had secured any other employment for the past 28 months, apart from the lock-out month for which the Supreme Court directed that they be paid. It is, no doubt, true that in the case relied upon by Mr. Ghulam Shah, Advocate, reported in 1975 PLC 70, my pre--decessor Mr. Justice Inamullah had, because of a delay in the disposal of the case, reduced back benefits from a period of 12 months to a period of 5 months only. However, I find that, in the present case, the delay in the disposal of this case can be laid at the door of the appellant, Textile Corporation of Pakistan Ltd., who obtained a stay order from the Supreme Court.
7. In the result, then, I am of the view that there is no force in these 19 appeals which are hereby dismissed and the stay granted by me on 23rd October, 1977 is hereby set aside.