' All the 35 appellants were workmen employed in Messrs G. M. Fisheries Ltd., the respondents herein. By separate, but similar orders, dated 31st January, 1981, the services of the 35 appellants were terminated on the ground of slackness in work lack of export orders and general depression in the business activities. The orders of termination of services of the appellants further recite that in effecting the retrenchment of the appellants the principle of "last in and first out" had been strictly kept and that in accordance with the law each of the appellants would be paid one month's wages in lieu of notice, in addition to all other legal dues, which should be collected from the Cashier of the Company. The appellants filed separate grievance petitions against the termination of their services, but the same were dismissed by the learned Vth Labour Court, by its consolidated decision, dated 10th August, 1981. Aggrieved by this decision, separate appeals have been filed before this Tribunal by each of the 35 appellants. This order will dispose of all the 35 appeals.
2. I have heard Mr. A. G. Sheikh, the learned counsel for the appellants, and Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani, who appeared for the respondent Company.
3. The sole ground on which Mr. A. G. Sheikh assailed the retrenchment of the appellants and the impugned decision of the learned Labour Court was that the contention of the respondent Company that there was slackness in the demand for the prawns processed by the respondent Company and that there was general depression in the prawn business was incorrect and at any rate had not been established. The respondent Company has led 3 pieces of evidence to substantiate its contention about slackness of demand and general depression in its business. The first was the letters/stalexe/telegrams from the foreign buyers which appear at pages 763, 767, 769 and 771 of the record of the learned Labour Court. These letters etc. Were produced, by the respondent Company through its Manager-cum-Chief Accountant of Presiding Division, Qamar Sajjad. These letters clearly show that there was worldwide drop in the sale of frozen shrimps which is the business carried on by the respondent Company. These letters/telexes are from international corporations and were received by the respondent-Company in the normal course of its business.
They substantially support the contention of the respondent-Company that there was a world- wide depression in the frozen shrimps industry, Substantial support to these documents is provided by the newspapers reports appearing at pages 781 to 795 of the record of the learned Labour Court. All these reports show that there was a slump in the world shrimp business and that this world-wide slump had severely affected the local shrimp market and industry. These reports appear in different newspapers of different dates and depicit the local as well as the foreign condition in the shrimp industries. A further factor indicating that the business of the respondent- Company had greatly declined and was hit by the depression is the profit and loss statements of the Company for the years 1978, 1979 and 1980. These statements of accounts were produced through Sheikh Jalaluddin, a partner in Sandhoo and Company Chartered Accountants. The statements of accounts for the year 1978 and 1979 have been duly audited while the statement of accounts for the year 1980 is still under audit. According to these statements, the respondent- Company suffered a loss of Rs, 31,54,477.39 during the year ending 31st December, 1978, a loss of Rs, 2,13,982.64 for the year ending 31st December, 1979, and a further loss of Rs, 28,37,981.25 for the year ending 31st December, 1980, making a total loss of Rs, 62,08,441.28, during the period of the above 3 years. No evidence in rebuttal of these statements of accounts has been produced by the appellants. The evidence regarding these losses is thus to be accepted and cannot be ignored. The evidence of the losses gather with the other 2 pieces of evidence indicating slump in the shrimps, business both in the country as well as in the World market, clearly substantiates the stand of the respondent-Company that the retrenchment' was necessary as well as bona fide.
4. Mr. A. G. Sheikh sought to argue that the retrenchment was male fide and was maneuvered to crush the union activities of the appellants. In support of his contention, he advanced a two-fold argument. His first limb of contention was that the plea of slackness of the demand in the shrimps business stands completely demolished by the fact that huge overtime was taken by the respondent-Company from its workmen. A very large number of overtime slips have been produced by the appellants which appear at pages 67 to 665 of the record of the learned Labour Court. Most of the slips are in respect of individual workers but some of the slips are in respect of 2, 3 or even more workmen. However, as pointed out by the learned Labour Court, the mere fact that overtime was being taken by the respondent-Company through its workmen does not mean that there was no slump in the shrimps business of slackness in the demand as contended by the respondent-Company. In considering the fact of overtime we must also bear in mind the nature of the industry being carried on by the respondent-Company. It is an admitted position that the business of the respondent-Company is solely dependent upon the catches of shrimps brought by trawlers and fishing boats. There are no fixed times for the return of the trawlers and the fishing boats. Furthermore the size of the catches brought by them largely depend upon variable factors like the season, the weather and the passage of shrimps shoals near our coast lines and fishing grounds. Moreover the shrimps are admittedly a perishable commodity. As soon as the catches are brought to the shore, the shrimps must be at once cleaned and processed, canned and kept in a frozen condition until their export. Special arrangements are also needed for the export of the processed shrimps as they have to be transported in ships having arrangements for freezing and cold storage. As such, there would be times when there would be urgent need for overtimes work because of receipt of large catches of shrimps and other times there may be no work or very light work in the factory because of poor catches of there being not enough raw material to keep the work men busy. Apart from the fact that shrimps industry being a special kind of business, which has frequent rush times and slack times, since the shrimp industry in Pakistan is export oriented, any slackness of demand or depression in the world markets adversely effects the shrimp industries in the country. I have already referred to the evidence indicating that there was depression in the world markets so far as the demand of frozen shrimp is concerned. There was thus adequate justification for the respondent-Com pay to effect retrenchment and cut down its losses. This Tribunal, in the case of Textile Corporation of Pakistan Ltd. v. Bar All and 56 others, decided on 30th September, 1981, while upholding the right of the management to retrench workers in the case of continued losses, observed as follows:- "This Tribunal, in 3 recent cases, namely Messrs Bayer Pharrna Ltd. v. Mirza Hussain Akhtar (1)
Corning Glass (Pak.) Ltd., Karachi v. Muhammad Hanif and another (2) and Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan Ltd. v. Mahboob Nurul Amin, decided on 23rd September, 1981, has reviewed the authorities, both in Pakistan and in the Indian Jurisdiction, on the subject of what constitutes retrenchment and when retrenchment can be validly resorted to by the employer. The rule followed in all these 3 decisions is that the management has the right and the power to re- organize, mechanize or improve the industrial process of an industrial establishment and for the purpose of effecting economy or cutting losses, is entitled to retrench surplus staff, provided that the retrenchment is bona fide and is not a cloak or device to get rid of any workmen who are considered inconvenient or undersirable. Huge losses having been incurred by the mills of the appellant corporation not only during the period from 30th September, 1974 upto 30th September, 1978, but also for the subsequent period, as appears from the audited accounts of the mills produced by the Chartered Accountant of the mills, Sirajuddin, Qasim which indicate that during the period from 30th September, 1978 to September, 1979, the mills had suffered a loss of Rs, 57,54,649.75, the management of the appellant Mills was not only entitled to but clearly appeared to have been acting on sound business principles in effecting sensible retrenchment within the provisions of law.
5. The second limb of the argument of Mr. A. G. Sheikh, challenging the retrenchment of the appellants as being mala fide is also without substance. The mere fact that among the retrenched workers were the' General Secretary of the C. B. A. And some other officers of the Workers' Union does not give rise to the inference that the retrenchment was mala, fide and was effected for the purposes of crushing the union activities.' As already pointed out, the orders of retrenchment of the appellants specifically asserted that the principle of "last in and first out" was being strictly followed. It was, however, contended by Mr. A. G. Sheikh that this principle was violated and that the juniors were retained while the seniors were thrown out. There is, however, no evidence on the record in support of this contention. No doubt, the appellants in their evidence before the learned Labour Court have alleged that the principle of "last in and first out" was violated but no names of senior persons, who were thrown out or junior persons who were retained in service, were given by them nor was any of the said senior persons; who were thrown out, examined by them. In the absence of any such evidence, the contention of the appellants that this principle was not followed cannot be given any weight or consideration. Since it has not been established that the General Secretary was senior to any person who had been retained in service, the mere fact that of his being General Secretary of the C. B. A., did not protect him against the retrenchment. In fact if he had not been thrown out while his seniors were thrown out, the latter would have badly a valid grievance against the respondent-Company. {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) 1981 PLC24 (2) 1981 PLC 361 {{FOOT NOTE}}
6. It was finally urged by Mr. A. G. Sheikh that the termination of services of the appellant was in violation of the settlement arrived at between the respondent-Company and its C. B. A. On 1st October, 1980, which settlement is to continue in remain in force till 1st February, 1982. There is, however, nothing in the said settlement which places any impediment in the way of the respondent-Company to effect bona fide retrenchment. The mere fact that the settlement recites that the Union representatives had assured the respondent-Company that the workers would work hard and efficiently so as to increase production or that the union had agreed not to raise any demand of financial nature during the period of operation of the settlement cannot be considered as being in return for any implied assurance on the part of the respondent-Company that no retrenchment would be effected.
7. For the reasons discussed by me above, I find no merit in these 35 appeals and would accordingly dismiss the same.