' This appeal arises from the decision dated 26-12-1977 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,1, Lahore whereby he dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement.
2. The appellant was a Medical-cum-Sales Representative in the respondent firm. His services were terminated on 30-6-1976 on account of the fact that the import licence of the drugs was refused by the Government on the ground that drug manufacturing licence to prepare and sell medicines on generic names be obtained. The grounds taken in the grievance petition were that since the appellant was an active member of the union, by way of victimization his services were terminated without making any enquiry. In the petition the appellant urged that he was dismissed on account of an alleged misconduct, which was contained in the dismissal order. In the reply the respondent denied this fact and said that the grounds of termination were not any misconduct but was clearly given in the order of termination. The order of termination is on the record which does not show that any allegation of misconduct was made against the appellant. The reason given is that supply of products in the area had dwindled considerably and there was no business worth the name. It was also mentioned that financially too the respondent was not able to conduct the business in the area. Therefore, the post held by the appellant was abolished. The appellant did not establish that there were any allegations of misconduct against him. Even in his statement, the appellant did not say that there was any allegation of misconduct or that he was dismissed. He, however, stated that one Khurshid, Typist, belonged in his category, who was junior to him and he was not terminated. He, however, did not produce any seniority list, nor any other document to show that actually Malik Khurshid was an employee of the respondents or that he was junior to him and that he was retained in service. There is no document to show that the appellant was working as Typist.
According to the case of the respondents, he was Medical and Sale Representative. He admitted his signatures on Exh.D-1 to D-3 but added that these samples he had given only .To please the people. He had to admit that after showing samples, he used to get orders from the people. It is clear from his admission that he was not working as typist but as Medical and Sales representative.
He, therefore, was not doing any manual or clerical work and thus was not covered by the definition of workman. The services of the appellant were not terminated on account of any bad motive but the respondent was compelled to do so, because the business had failed, due to the fact that the Government had changed its policy and refused to issue import licence for the raw material.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that the very closure of the business is against law, because no prior permission was taken under Standing Order 11-A of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 from the Labour Court.
He also says that permission was taken afterwards. There is no evidence that the whole factory was closed on the day on which the services of the appellant were terminated. In the order of termination, copy of which is Exh.R-1, it is mentioned that the Management was unable to terminate the services of more than fifty per cent of the workers at a time although there was no work for any of the workers in the establishment. It is clear that more than fifty per cent workers were not retrenched at a stretch and thus no violation of Standing Order 11-A was made. No documentary evidence was produced by the appellant to show that more than fifty per cent workers were retrenched or that the whole establishment was closed on the date on which the appellant was terminated. The application for permission to close down the whole of the establishment was made on 28-7-1976 and the permission was accorded. This shows that the services of the employees were not terminated with mala fide intention but rather in reality there were good grounds for termination and for intention to close down the whole of the factory. The order of the Labour Court passed under Standing Order 11-A stands and was not set aside by any higher authority. There is no force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the provisions of Standing Order 11-A have been violated while terminating the services of the appellant.
4. The grievance petition of the appellant was rightly dismissed by the learned lower Court. There is no force in the appeal, which too is dismissed.