Applicant Naseebuddin has sought declaration that the order about termination of his services was illegal, mala fide and was based on victimisation. He has prayed for re-instatement in service with back benefits since the date of his removal.
2. Admittedly the applicant was in service of Rehman's Agricultural Manufacturers Company, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the main Company) of which Zikrur Rehman's (to be referred to as respondent No. 1) and Abdul Qadir (to be referred to as the respondent No. 2.) were Managing Partners. Applicant joined such company on 1-1-1980 as Hammerman. Under a Notice A/1 dated 31- 5-1981 issued by the said Company under signature of respondent No. 1, the applicant was informed that his services would stand terminated with effect from 30-6-1981 (afternoon) because partnership of said main company would stand dissolved on 30-6-1981, A. N. And its assets as well as liabilities would be bifurcated and that consequent to such bifurcation the work load would be reduced and a very limited number of machines would remain in hand. In this way services of the applicant were terminated.
3. In his grievance application; the applicant challenged termination of his services to be illegal, and mala fide. Applicant stated that attitude of the management with the workers being harsh: the workers formed a union through which they sought certain legal facilities including bonus for 1979- 80 and 1980-81. That the management was not happy with the union- and hence it resorted to retrenchment which was meant to victi--mize the workers Applicant complained that he was victimized due to union activities. He added that even after bifurcation of the main company the work was going on in both` parts of the factory, where new workers were being recruited. He alleged that new persons were made to work in his place. Applicant claimed to have sent grievance notices copy A/2 to both the respondents, one of whom Zikrur Rahman gave reply A/4..
Registered cover containing grievance notice for Abdul Qadir came back with endorsement of the Postman about Former's separation from the partnership.
4. Both the respondents in their separate reply statements contested the grievance application and challenged it to be non-maintainable. Respondent No. Stated that the partnership firm under which the appli--cant was working was dissolved on 30-6-1981 and on 1-7-1981 a new set up had come into being with Zikrur Rahman and Ziaur, Rahman as partners. That the respondent No. I bad retained half of the factory premises and 50% of the machinery and equipments and he had no interest or concern with any other factory. It was explained that termination of services of the applicant had become inevitable as he became surplus to requirements of the concern and he was duly informed in writing yell in time with bona fide, explicit and justified reasons. It was denied if the applicant was victimized for trade union activities.
5. In his reply statement the respondent No. 2 (Abdul Qadir) also challenged jurisdiction of this Court. He alleged that he was wrongly and illegally impleaded as party. Respondent No. 2 stated that he was partner of Chohan Agricultural Machinery Manufacturer Company; which was never remained employer of the applicant and which was never governed by the Standing Orders Ordinance as the highest number of its workers and employees was not more than 14. The main company, which was employer of the applicant, was said to be still existing and being run in the same name and style. Respondent No. 2 denied receipt of the grievance notice. Respondent No. 2 added that he had employed Saleem Ahmed, Mohd Anwar and Nasir Ali from amongst the workers who were previ--ously employed by the main company before its partition. It was added that machinery over which the applicant was working had gone in share of Messrs Rehman's Agricultural Manufacturer's Company. It was denied if the applicant was victimized for any trade union activity or if any worker was appointed in place of the applicant.
6. Parties adduced evidence. I have heard Mr. Bashir Ahmed Repre--sentative for the applicant, Mr. Bashir Awan Advocate for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Abdul Hameed Siddiqui, counsel for respondent No. 2.
7. Copy A/2 of the grievance notice shows that it was addressed to each of the respondents.
Respondent No. 1 received the grievance notice and gave its reply A/4, as per paras. 8 and 9 who deposed that on 11-7-81 and again on 12-7-1981 he took registered envelope A/3 bearing R. No. R- 186 for Abdul Qadir respondent No. 2 to premises of Rahman Agricultural Manufacturers Company where Abdul Qadir was not available but he was reported to have stopped visiting said premises as his partner--ship with respondent No. 1 was dissolved. Such endorsement was said to have been made on the envelope A/3 by the postman. In his cross---examination respondent No. 2 admitted that the Registered Cover A/3 contained his correct address. The grievance notice contained by the Registered Cover A/3 is therefore deemed to have been served upon the Respondent No. 2, in view of the observations made in 1981 PLC 354 and in PLD 1981 SC 225 cited on behalf of the applicant.
8. It is pertinent to note that the applicant in his grievance applica--tion has sought relief against Respondent No. 1 but not against the respondent No. 2. Impugned order A/1 about termination of services of the applicant was challenged to be illegal, mala fide and vindictive. Dissolution of the main Company has not been challenged. This was stated by respondent No. 1 in para. 5 of his reply statement, and in para. 2 of affidavit of Jameel Ahmed. It was also stated by respondent No. 2 in para. 5 of his reply statement and in para. 2 of b is affidavit. This was conceded by the applicant in para. 5 of the grievance application. Respondent No. 1 produced copy of an entry dated 12-8-1981 from the records maintained by the Registrar of Firms Hyderabad showing that the respondent No. 2 Abdul Qadir and one Fazal Karim had retired from the main company whose Constitution was accordingly altered. After dissolution of the main Company only half of the factory premises and 50% of the machinery and equipments were retained by the respon--dent No. 1 as stated by him in para. 5 of the reply statement. His witness Jameel Ahmed said that after partitioning of the main partnership the work load was reduced to a great extent. This assertion was not challenged in cross-examination of Jameel Ahmed who admitted that the work was going on in the partitioned Company. The working in the partitioned Company may be continuing but its requirement of the workers cannot be as much as it was in the main Company. Thus there are reasons to believe that there was genuine need for retrenchment of the staff employed by the defunct main Company.
9. Clause (1) of S. O. 12 permits an employer to terminate the services of even a permanent worker for any reason whatsoever except the ground of misconduct. It is within the discretion of an employer to organize and arrange his business in the manner he considers best, as observed in 1981 PLC 24. The only check upon such power of a employer is that he must act bona fidely and not for the purpose of victi--mizing his employees, as held in same case. In 1962 PLC 1275 was held that the Management has unfettered power to terminate the services of an employee by one month's notice or notice pay. In 1965 PLC 216 it was observed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan that where there was a reorganization for a bona fide purpose and the notices o discharge were in relation to redundancy without any taint of victimization, the action being bona fide did not attract control of Industrial Court. I the instant case the main Company has admittedly been partitioned bifurcated into two parts vide para. 5 of the grievance application and para. 5 of reply statement of respondent No. 1 and para. 5 of affidavit of Respondent No. 2. In such reorgainization redundancy.
Of certain posts is natural. Applicant has not alleged anywhere if the main Company violated S. O.
13 while ordering his retrenchment or if the persons junior to him were retained in service after 30- 6-1981.
10. Grievance of the applicant was that new persons were appointed. In his affidavit sworn on 25-5- 1982 applicant Naseebuddin stated that after termination of his services respondent No. 1 had appointed Mohd Bashir, Mohd. Asghar, Anwd and Mohd Afzal as Hammer Men and respondent No. 2 had appointed Mohd Aslam as HammerMan. He did not give these names in his grievance notice copy A/2 or in his grievance application. He said in cross that after his removal from service he had never been to Rahman Agricultural Manufacturer Company and that the workers working in said company told him that other persons were appointed in place of retrenched persons. This shows that information of the applicant is hearsay. There is no other evidence from applicant side on this point. Respondent's witness Jameel Ahmed stated in his affidavit that after the partnership was divided the work load was reduced and the applicant became surplus to requirements of No. 1 and no substitute of the applicant was appointed. It was not put to Jameel Ahmad in cross if Respondent No. 1 had recruited in service the persons named in para. 7 of affidavit of the applicant after removing the applicant and others. Applicant has thus failed to make out case against the respondent No. 1 about his retrenchment being illegal. As against the respondent No. 2 no relief is sought.
11. After dissolution of the main Company, two separate Companies came into being. The assets and liabilities of the main Company devolved upon the respondents 1 & 2. The applicant has chosen to seek relief against respondent No. 2. The applicant has not been able to prove that there re were 20 persons or mere in service of the respondent No. 1. It is not established if the Standing Orders Ordinance applied to the respondents after bifurcation of the main firm. Applicant fails on this ground alone.
12. Plea about victimization due to trade union activities is not proved by positive evidence. No doubt a union was formed and it gave notice of demands to Management of the main Company and ultimate there was award by the arbitrator about bonus, about increase in pay of workers and about working hours, as stated by Jamil Ahmed in cross! But Jameel Ahmed denied in cross that services of the applicant and others were terminated due to their being members of the union. It was not suggested to Jamil Ahmed in cross-examination if the applicant was key person in union affairs.
Applicant Naseebuddin admitted in his cross-examination that he did not do any union work. He was not office-bearer of the union.
13. In view of above discussions I hold that the applicant has no case. His grievance application therefore stands dismissed.