' MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, J---This appeal is directed against the order dated 13-10-2004 passed by Sindh Labour Court No,3, Karachi whereby the Grievance Petition jointly filed by the Respondents Nos.1 to 36 was allowed.
2. According to the facts of the case, M/s. United Woolen Mills Ltd. After being permitted by the Labour Court under section 11-A of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 closed its establishment. Such order was challenged through constitutional petition before this Court but the same was upheld. Consequent upon closure of the establishment, the services of the Respondent workmen were terminated vide letter of termination issued on 19-7-1986. Being aggrieved by their termination, the Respondents moved their Grievance Petition before the Labour Court which was allowed, hence this appeal.
3. It is contended on behalf of the Appellants that the services of the workers had to be terminated consequent upon permission having been granted for closure of the establishment. The letter of termination was issued in writing stating therein explicit reasons for the termination and that nobody was employed in the mills for whole year. It was submitted that the termination by way of retrenchment was a vested right of the employer. It was, therefore, contended that the order of the Labour Court thereby reinstating the workers was against the law and evidence.
4. On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the Respondents that the termination of service was tainted with malice and that the factory was functioning under a new name. It was contended that there was no evidence to show that the establishment was, in fact, closed down.
The order for closure was sought for mala fide reasons.
5. The contentions raised on behalf of the parties have been considered and the material placed on the record has been scrutinized.
6. It is an admitted position that the Appellants were allowed to close their establishment by the Labour Court as provided under section 11-A of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. It seems that the order passed by the Labour Court *as challenged before this Court under constitutional jurisdiction but the order of closure of the establishment was upheld. After obtaining the order to close down the establishment, the Management terminated the services of the workers.
7. It must be stated that under the provisions of S.O. 12 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, the employer has unfettered right to terminate the services of the workers, however subject to certain conditions. The law provides that for terminating the services of a permanent workman except for the reasons of misconduct, the letter of termination must contain one month notice or pay in lieu thereof and should explicitly state the reasons and above all the termination must be for bona fide reasons. The letter of termination placed on record adequately reveals that the Management has specified the reasons of closure of establishment for termination of services of the workers and it manifests that the Respondent workers were granted one month's salary in lieu of the notice. Each of the Respondent workers appeared before the Labour Court as his own witness. Almost all the workers admitted in their cross-examination the factum that after permission the factory was closed. All of them also admitted to have received letter of termination. Once an establishment has been permitted under the law to be closed down, then such establishment achieves rightful justification to dispense with the services of the workers. Accordingly, the Appellant was left with no option except to terminate the services of the workers as the establishment already stood closed with the permission of the Court. In the circumstances, it cannot be believed or concluded that the termination of services of the Respondents was for ulterior motives or it was tainted with malice
8. It seems that a plea was raised before the Labour Court that the establishment was being run by employing persons on temporary basis. However, neither in the pleadings nor in the evidence any specific instance was given to show that anybody was appointed on temporary basis in replacement of the permanent workers. Nothing has been brought on record to that effect.
Nevertheless, on the demand of the Respondents audit reports of the Appellant-company were produced in evidence which speak contrary to the claim made by the Respondent workers.
9. In the above circumstances, the order passed by the Labour Court is contrary to law and against the evidence on record thus not sustainable. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order passed by the Labour Court is set aside.