ABDUL HAFEEZ CHEEMA (CHAIRMAN).- The petitioners have questioned the legality of the orders dated 6-5-2009 and 6-9-2008 passed by the learned Punjab Labour Court No,9, at Multan by means of this Revision Petition. It is claimed that due to various problems/ unavoidable circumstances including crisis of power, price of cotton, old machinery, their factory was running in colossal loss in the last many years. In these circumstances it was not possible for the management of the mills to keep the factory functional. In the year 2004-2005 loss was Rs,2,06,33,951; in the year 2005-2006 it was Rs,3,12,68,412 and in the year 2006-2007 the financial loss swelled to an alarming extent of Rs,8,11,44,278. Even otherwise, cotton textile business in the country in general was in crisis on account of unfavourable trading conditions as reported in the press from time to time. More than 100 Textile Mills had been closed down because the Units were running in losses due to the increasing cost of input and increase in the minimum wage, addition in power tariff etc. Yet another cause was the low productivity on account of the old plant machinery, were some of the other reasons for the less production which was causing loss.
2. Due to the aforesaid reasons, the management decided that instead of terminating the services of the workers a Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS) be introduced in the establishment so that some additional payment over and above the actual entitlement be given to the workers of the factory so that when they leave the job they may engage themselves in their own business. For this purpose, the management and the CBA got together and worked out a formula in the shape of a settlement on 14-3-2008 under the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002.
3. In 'pursuance of this settlement handsome financial benefits over and above their legal dues with a minimum of gross 22 monthly wages were decided to be given to the workers who exercised this option as it was not possible in the prevailing circumstances to continue the manufacturing process and the production in the unit had to be suspended. About 687 workers exercised their option under the said VSS scheme and resigned from the company / unit on their free will. 87% workers have so far collected their dues in full and final settlement of account including additional ex gratia amount to the tune of Rs,65 Millions.
4. In order to close down the Mills an application under Standing Order 11-A of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 (hereinafter described as the Ordinance) was filed before the learned Punjab Labour Court No,9, Multan. Respondent No,1 the CBA raised no objection to the acceptance of the application. The learned trial Court passed an order on 6-9-2008 that a notice regarding permission for closure of the Mills be affixed at the gate of the Mills and advertisement be made in the two dailies, daily Jang and daily Nawa-e-Waqat.
Accordingly, the said advertisement was published. The petitioner moved an application before the trial Court that the order dated 6-9-2009 was not lawful as such it may be recalled as none except the CBA had the locus standi to be impleaded.
5. In the wake of the advertisement 40 respondents (out of them some were the officers in the mills establishment and not workers) evinced interest in joining proceedings and the court ordered the establishment to file an amended petition including them as respondents. In these circumstances the petitioner establishment has claimed that the orders dated 6-5-2009 and 6-9-2008 of the court may be declared illegal as according to Standing Order 11-A only the CBA can become a party.
6. The Petition has been stoutly resisted by the respondents who claimed that under section 41(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2008 they have every right to seek redressal of their grievances. The action of the Mills was also claimed to be mala fide.
7. Arguments have been heard and record has been perused:
8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Standing Order 11-A of the Ordinance, 1968 does not envisage that every individual worker has a right to question the closure of Mills and cannot become a party to the proceedings in the Labour Court. The intention behind the law is to ascertain the genuineness of the claim of the management. The CBA was the only authority recognized by the law as a representative of the workers and this exercise was undertaken with the consent and approval of the CBA. As for, the bona fides of the mills management it was claimed that the mills had never been vindictive and had always been according parental treatment to their workers. The VSS scheme envisages 22 salaries plus ex gratia benefits clearly show the benign treatment metted out to the workers. It was further claimed that in case everybody is allowed to challenge the closure of the Mills and become a party before the Labour Court that would frustrate the whole process and would cause chaos and confusion. The order made by the learned lower court is palpably wrong and in case it is implemented the proceedings will continue for ages resultantly neither there will be any Mills nor any worker and the Mills would be declared as insolvent.
9. On the other hand it is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the entire exercise is mala fide and the intention appears to be to retrench major part of the workers and to employ new ones according to their own terms and conditions because there is nothing on the record to show that the Mills was going in the losses. Had it been so they would have filed or produced the balance sheets in support of their contention. The workers have been given right under section 41 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2008 to approach the Labour Court for the redressal of their grievance as such any one who has a grievance against the scheme can legitimately voice his grievance in the labour court.
10. I am afraid the learned counsel for th/respondents had not gone through the record of the case.
In proof of the losses which the mill management have suffered year wise balance sheets P-I, P-2 and P-3 have been placed on the file which clearly show that the figures of losses shown in these balance sheets tally with those mentioned in their main petition under Standing Order 11-A ibid. As for, their other objection, the learned counsel for Mills management has referred to the judgement of the Sindh High Court reported as 1986 PLC 1052 wherein an exactly identical question was involved and their Lordships dealt with the proposition exhaustively and came to the conclusion that individual workers have no right to be impleaded as a party. I would like to refer to para 12 of the judgment which clearly shows that individual workers have no right to become party in this case:-- "12. In view of such a position, can the petitioners claim any vested right to be made a party in the proceedings before the Labour Court? I have already pointed out, the purpose of inquiry before the Labour Court appears to be only to determine whether the employer has bona fide reasons to close down the establishment or terminate the services of more than fifty per cent of the workmen employed by him. There is therefore no vested right of the petitioners which was likely to be affected by the proceedings pending before the Labour Court. Ordinarily, the employer should be at liberty to close down his establishment and terminate the services of his workmen if the exigencies so require. However, it appears that the legislature has imposed certain restrictions on the right of the employer to take such action, making prior permission of the Labour Court necessary in this respect. It is noteworthy that Standing Order 11-A does not provide for giving of notice to the individual workmen concerned or even the CBA therefore, the object behind joining the CBA as party to the proceedings before the Labour Court appears to be to enable the Labour Court to ascertain true facts so that nothing is concealed therefrom and not that it may espouse the cause of individual workers. No doubt, the employer has sought permission from the Labour Court to terminate the employment of all the workmen working in the establishment, but when such permission is granted as a consequence thereof, the employment of the petitioners is terminated, the petitioners have an appropriate remedy in the for section 25-A of the I.R.O. If they feel aggrieved by the termination of their employment. The observations made by the Supreme Court in 1971 SCM R 681 to which I have just referred, therefore, apply in full force to the facts of the instant petitions."
11. This view of the High Court has been followed in almost number of cases reported in Law Journals. Reference may be made to 2001 PLC 138 (Reckitt and Colman of Pakistan Limited and another v. The Presiding Officer), Sindh Labour Court No,3, Karachi. In an identical ,case 1986 PLC 951 the question was whether an individual worker has a right become a party in the proceedings under Standing Order 11-A of Ordinance, 1968 and it was held that an individual workeman is not a necessary party in the application for closure of the establishment under this provision of law.
Likewise in 2000 PLC 682 in case titled as Sh. Fazal Rehman and Sons Limited v. Shabbir Ahmed Butt and others, the Chairman Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal held that an individual worker has no right to seek impleadment in such a petition. As for the relief under section 41 Industrial Relations Act, 2008 it relates to individual grievance of worker regarding his personal grievance and not of nature as conceived under section 11-A.
12. In this view of the matter i' is more than clear that an individual worker has no right to be impleated as a party and the order passed by the learned Labour Court regarding the publication of closure of the Mills in the newspapers of two &Atonal dailies inviting the applications from the interested individuals had no legal sanction behind and the order is hereby set aside. Likewise, the respondents who wanted to become a party cannot be allowed to be made as respondents in this case and the order of the trial Court is hereby declared as illegal. Even otherwise, the officials of the Mills management who wanted to become a party are not workmen and as such they have no right to be impleaded as party.
13. The revision petition is, therefore, accepted and both the orders are declared to be of no legal effect and unlawful. The file may be sent back to the learned lower Court with a direction to disposed of the matter expeditiously.