DECISION This appeal is directed against the decision of the learned Fourth Labour Court, given on 26th September, 1982, dismissing the grievance petitions of the eight appellants challenging the termination of their services. The facts of this case, shortly stated are that the National Advertisers Limited, Karachi, had secured an order on 26th December, 1979, for the manufacture of sixty thousand sets of give-always of a special type. The payment for these special types brass give- always was to be made by the Saudia in U.S. Dollars. The total cost of these sixty thousand give- always was calculated in Pakistani rupees at rupees eighty-one lacs, which was to be paid in instalments some of which were to be advance payment. The National Advertisers entrusted this work to M/s. Mushtaq & Sons, the respondents herein, who engaged labour for this purpose. It appears that the respondents manufactured thirty-thousand sets of give-- always and received payment therefore. However, for the balance of thirty thousand sets of give-always, certain problems arose as delays for indefinite periods occurred. In the payment of advance for these number of sets. In consequence of this indefinite delay in the receipt of advance payments from Saudia through the National Advertisers Limited, the respondents laid of their workers by notice, dated 7th August, 1981. The lay of was for a period of eleven days from 7th August, 1981 to 17th August, 1981. As even after the lay of the expected advances were not received by the respondents for the balance of thirty thousand give-always to be manufactured by them, the respondents resorted to retrenchment and by notice, dated 12th October. 1981, retrepched 13 workers. In the retrenchment notice served upon the workers concerned it was specifically stated that the retrenchment was being made on the principle of --~first come last to go". The retrenchment notice further provided for one mouth's notice as provided under clause (i) of Standing Order 12 and also held out an assurance to the retrenched workers that they would be given first priority in employment under Standing Order 14 if the work re-started and fresh recruitment is made. The appellants challenged the orders of their retrenchment, which were made effective from 11th November, 1981, before the learned Fourth Labour Court, which allowed the same by its decision, given on 31st July, 1982, and .Directed their re-instatement in service with back benefits.; Against the said decision, the respondents came up in appeal to this Tribunal. By its order, dated 31st May, 1982, this Tribunal remanded the case to the learned Labour Court, to give oppor--tunity to both the parties to .Lead further evidence on the issue whether the foreign buyer, in fact had withdrawn its order for the supply by the respondents of brass give-always and whether the respondents had no other market for this produce. In the remand order it is specifically stated that the learned Labour Court would be at liberty to give a revised decision in the light of the further evidence which may be led before it. On remand further evidence was led by the respondents and the evidence indicated that the foreign buyer in fact had not withdrawn its order for the supply of sixty thousand give-always but there had been undoubtedly withholding of the advances for the remaining thirty thousand sets of give-always. ---The learned Labour Court has come to the conclusion that by reason of lack of funds the respondents were compelled to retrench part of their staff with effect from 11th November, 1981 and this retrenchment was valid and within the right of the employer. 1t, accordingly, dismissed the grievance petitions of the eight appellants. This time it is the workers who have come up in appeal to this Tribunal.
2. I have beard Ch. Rasheed Ahmed, the learned counsel for the appellants, and Mr. Ali Amjad.
Advocate, who appeared for the respon--dents. It was contended by Ch. Rasheed Ahmed that the only grievance presently of the appellants is the non-receipt of their wages for a period of three months commencing from 11th November, 1981 to 10th January, 1982. He submitted that with effect from 11th January, 1982 the appellants had been re-instated in service pursuant to the first decision, dated 31st January, 1982, of the learned Fourth Labour Court and that now the factory of the respondents has been completely closed and the appellants have received all their dues except the dues for the above period of three months. The issue, therefore, that falls to be considered is whether the retrenchment of the eight appellants during the period from 11th November, 1981 to 10th January, 1982 was a valid exercise of the right of the employer under the law. As already indicated the case of the respondents is that because of the non-receipt by them of the advances from the Saudia through the National Advertisers Limited, they found them--selves unable to pay their workers and hence they had no other alternative but to effect retrenchment of the surplus staff with an assurance to them that as and when the work restarted on receipt of the advances from the Saudia they would be recalled for duty which they actually seem to have done. The evidence on the liquidity position of the respondent has been given by Muhammad Anwar Mushtaq, witness of the respondents, in the case of Muhammad Umer. Which is not before this Tribunal. However, a certified copy of the evidence of the witness alongwith Annexures has been admitted before this Tribunal as evidence on the joint request by both the parties. It may further be mentioned that the liquidity position of the respondents during the period from August, 1981 to 22nd November, 1981 is depicted is the United Bank Limited statement which appears at page 175 of the record of the learned Labour Court in the case of appellant Pervez Iqbal. This has been considered alongwith the evidence of Anwar Mushtaq and the Annexures brought on record for the purposes of showing the subsequent financial position of the respondents. The Bank statement of the respondents for the period from August. 1981 to 22nd November, 1981 which, as already stated, was produced before the learned Labour Court in the case of appellant Pervez Iqbal indicates that in November, 1981, the bank balance of the respondents bad dwindled to Its. 4,367. This position further worsened in 29th November, 1981 when the account of the respondent with the U.B.L. Was in-red to the extent of Its.
6,900.63. The adverse account continued and in fact swelled to Rs. 68,159.52 on 17th January, 1982 when an amount of Rs. One lac was credited in the bank presumably on an advance instalment being received from the Saudia through the National Advertisers Limited. It was on receipt of this instalment that on 31st January, 19$2, the appellants were taken back in service pursuant to the orders of the learned Labour Court . Since from November, 1981 to 17th January, 1982 either the respondents had little cash with themselves or their account in the bank was substantially in the Ped they could not .Be expected to keep in employment all their workers who would expect their wages every fortnight or every month in accordance with the prevalent practice and the law. As then financial position of the respondent during the relevant period was adverse and in fact bordered on the precarious and there was no certainty when the advances will be received from the Saudia the respondents as prudent employer resorted to the valid device of retrenchment. No fault, therefore, could be found with the action of the respondents, in retrenching the services of the appellants on one month's notice. It was, however, sought to be argued by Ch. Rasheed Ahmed that subsequently the respondents received adequate amounts and not only re-started their work but employed all the appellants and other workers who were paid their wages in full for the subsequent period of employment. He further pointed out that at the time of preferring the appeal against the first order of the learned Labour Court, the respondents had deposited with this Tribunal an amount of Its. 13,386, which amount still stands deposited with this Tribunal. The said amount was deposited on 4th April. 1982, much after the reinstatement of the appellants and after the receipt of the advance of Rs. One lac on 17th January, 1982. The advance of Rs. One lac was received in the third week of January, much after the termination of services of the appellants in November, 1981. There is no evidence that in November, 1981, the respondents had the necessary funds to employ and pay the appellants. There is also no tangible evidence to establish that the respon--dents expected earlier receipt of advances either from the Saudia or through the National Advertisers Limited. In the circumstances, no fault can be found with the action of the respondents in terminating the services of the appellants.
3. Mr. Ch. Rasheed Ahmed also sought to argue that the learned Labour Court was not competent to revise or modify its decision as its order was not set aside by this Tribunal. I find no force in this contention as it A was specifically directed by this Tribunal that the learned Labour Court was at liberty to revise its order. In any case in appeal this Tribunal is competent to revise any order.
4. For the reasons discussed by me above, I find no merit in this appeal and would, therefore, dismiss the same.