' JAVED IQBAL, J.---The above captioned petitions for leave to appeal have been filed against lodgment dated 7.5.2008 passed by learned single Judge of Lahore High Court Lahore" in chambers whereby the appeal preferred on behalf of petitioner against the order dated 25.2.2008 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court-VII, Gujanwala whereby all the respondents have been reinstated in service without all back benefits has been dismissed.
2. Raja Muhammad Bashir, learned. Sr. ASC entered appearance on behalf of petitioner and urged with vehemence that the legal and factual aspects of the controversy have not been appreciated yin its -true perspective which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. In order to substantiate the said contention it is argued that MAP Rice Mills (petitioner) had purchased the Mill which belonged to Pak. Pearl Rice Mills (respondent No 2) without any liabilities and the petitioner and respondent No 2 are entirely two different entities which escaped the notice of learned single Judge of the High Court. It is next contended that the respondents were removed from service by Pak. Pearl Rice Mills (respondent No 2) and the petitioner could not be held responsible in any manner whatsever. It is stressed time and again that the petitioner had purchased assets of Pak. Pearl Rice Mills (respondent No, 2) and not the liabilities. It is contended that petitioner was not the employer of removed workers and hence no cause of action against petitioner is available and besides that no grievance notice was ever served upon the petitioner. It is argued that the learned Labour Court and High Court have erred in law by holding that the petitioner had also assumed the liabilities. It is also contended that proper opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioner causing serious prejudice against him.
3. Mr. Abdul Rashid Awan, learned ASC entered appearance on behalf of respondent No, 1 and supported the judgment impugned for the reasons enumerated therein with the further submission that the petitioner had purchased the assets and liabilities both which being question of fact has been dilated upon and decided by the learned Presiding Officer, determination whereof has been upheld by the learned High Court and being concurrent findings of fact it cannot be reversed without any lawful justification which is lacking in this case. Mr. Abdul Rashid Awan, learned ASC has also pointed out the relevant portion of the record indicating that proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and he was never condemned unheard.
4. We have carefully examined the respective contentions as agitated on behalf of the parties and perused the judgment of learned Labour Court as well as the judgment impugned. We have also scanned the entire record with the eminent assistance of learned counsel. After having gone through the entire record we have not been persuaded to agree with the prime contention of Raja Muhammad Bashir, learned Sr. ASC on behalf of petitioner that proper opportunity of hearing was not afforded for the reason that this aspect of the matter has been dilated upon and decided by the learned High Court in the judgment impugned, relevant portion whereof is reproduced herein below for ready reference: "5. The conduct of the present appellant before the Labour Court reflects from paras 7 and 8 of the impugned judgment, wherein it is explained that after closure of evidence of the respondents on 10.12.2003 the case was fixed for evidence of the appellant for 20.1,2004, which could not. Be produced even after availing as many as 23 opportunities upto 20.7.2005 when an application was filed for impleadment of Map Rice Mills as party, which was allowed, where-after the case was once again fixed for evidence and the appellant was again granted a number of adjournments, as explained therein, resulting into closure of evidence of the appellant."
5. The conduct of the petitioner as mentioned in the above-referred paragraph would speak a volume about his conduct. A fair opportunity of hearing was afforded which was never availed by the petitioner due to certain extraneous considerations. Raja Muhammad Bashir, learned Sr. ASC on behalf of petitioner could not explain that as to how proper opportunity of hearing has not been afforded as the said contention probably has been made in oblivion of the record as mentioned hereinabove. It is worth mentioning here that the application preferred under section 46 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 by the respondent was duly responded and its reply was given, hence the question of any ignorance does not arise as argued by Raja Muhammad Bashir, learned, Sr. ASC. It is worth mentioning that none appeared before the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court as transpired from his observations made by him, which are as follows:-- ' "This Court has waited the learned counsel for the respondent. Mr. Altaf Asghar Bhatti till 1 1 :35 a.m.
No one has attended this Court from the side of the Map Rice Mills.
' The proposition is legal one. Pak Pearl Rice Mills transformed itself into Map Rice Mills. All the assets and liabilities of Pak Pearl Rice Mills are transferred to Map Rice Mills. Therefore, the newly incorporated management would be responsible for all the liabilities of previous management.
' The new management cannot avoid the liabilities which are created or creation of Pak Pearl Rice Mills.
' From another angle Map Rice Mills could he a proper party. Without its impleadment the matter cannot be decided conclusively. In the long run the liability is to be fixed by this Court. As it is a financial liability, therefore, some one must be responsible for it This Court would fix the financial responsibility after recording the evidence.
' It is obligatory on the Court to provide opportunity of hearing to both the managements. In this view of the matter Map Rice Mills is arrayed as respondent in this case. The application is accepted.
The petitioner is directed to submit amended petition on 16.5.2006",
6. Raja Muhammad Bashir, learned Sr. ASC on behalf of petitioner was asked pointedly that as .To how the new management of MAP Rice Mills (petitioner) can avoid the liabilities? The answer given was that the new management has purchased the assets and is least concerned with the liabilities but nothing in black and white could be produced and no evidence could be led to substantiate the said assertion. How the respondent could have been shunted out verbally that too in violation of the relevant provisions of law as enumerated in the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968.
7. The grievance notice was served upon Pak. Pearl Rice Mills and the order of termination dated 21.1.2003 was challenged. It is to be noted that on 20.7.2005 an application seeking amendment was moved in the petition on behalf of the employees regarding impleadment of MAP Rice Mills as party, which was accepted on 20.42006 and case was fixed for submission of Vakalatnama and written reply on behalf of MAP Rice Mills (petitioner), but needful could not be done on various dates i,e.
13.1.2007, 10.2.2007, 27.2.2007, 26.3.2007, 21.4.2007, 30.5.2007 and 10.7.2007. It was never the case of petitioner that they had only purchased the assets having no concern with the liabilities. They have attempted to portrait altogether a new case which cannot be allowed at this belated stage. It has been observed with grave concern and it is really shocking that the matter was adjourned on 29 different occasions enabling the petitioner to produce the evidence which could not be done for the reasons best known to the petitioner. The evidence which has come on record has been appreciated in its true perspective by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court. No allegation whatsoever was alleged against the employees and no evidence could be led to substantiate that the petitioner had no concern with the liabilities. Besides that the employees were terminated verbally and in our view verbal order would have no legal effect because it will he in violation of the relevant provisions as envisaged in section 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 and not in consonance with the dictum as laid down in case titled Muhammad Yousaf Khan Khattak v. S.M Ayub (PLD 1973 SC 160), Fida Muhammad v. Muhammad Khan (PLD 1985 SC 341) and Neimat Ali Goraya v. Jaffar Abbas, Inspector/Sargeant Traffic (1996 SCM R 826). No illegality or irregularity could be pointed out either in the judgment of learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court or in the judgment impugned. The entire evidence which has come on record has been appreciated in accordance with law and settled norms of justice by the learned Presiding Officer Labour Court, determination whereof has been upheld by the learned High Court and the judgment impugned being well-based does not warrant interference. The petitions being devoid of merits are dismissed and .