DECISION These are thirteen (13) appeals filed by the appellants against an impugned order, dated 28-4- 1986, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. II, Karachi, who had dismissed the grievance petitions of the appellants filed by them under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969. As the facts and circumstances, mentioned in the common impugned order in all these thirteen appeals are similar, therefore, I also propose to dispose of all these thirteen appeals by this single decision.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants claimed to be the permanent workmen of the respondent Mills and that as the respondents wanted to gain financial and other interest by replacing the workers with the new workers on the pretext of modernising the Mills, therefore, their services were terminated, vide letter, dated 9-7-1985 on the false grounds of availing Government offer to modernizing the machinery. Further, that the order of termination was not proper and bona fide and that even after modernizing the respondent mills, they would have required the services of the workers and it was proper for the respondent Mills to have laid-of them during the period of modernization /replacement of the machinery and they could have been recalled after the machinery was replaced/ modernized. However, the appellants served their grievance notices upon the respondent Mills, but, vide their grievance notices upon the respondent Mills, but, vide their letter, dated 20-8-1985 refused to redress their grievances, so, they submitted grievance petitions before the learned Labour Court.
3. The respondent Mills resisted the petitions. Firstly, they had challenged the maintainability of the petitions by raising legal objections that the services of the appellants were terminated as a result of retrenchment and keeping in view the principle of 'first in last go' on a bona fide reason and there was no infringement of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968; and that the termination of services of the appellants were not connected with an industrial dispute or due to an industrial dispute, but, due to reasons beyond the control of the respondent Mills. On merits, the case of the respondent Mills was that the majority of the looms installed in the Mills were of local origin and had become old which had badly affected upon the quality and quantity of the manufactures of the Mills which could not be sold easily in the market, so, they decided to replace them with the modern shuttle looms, for the import of which, the Government had announced certain concessions. They had denied that the appellants were terminated on a false ground or the termination was mala fide or improper and further that the question of laying-of the appellants was not possible as they had completely stopped the operation of all such valid, legal and proper, hence, the appellants were not entitled to maintain grievance petitions, which were liable to be dismissed.
4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits-in-evidence and they were duly cross-examined.
As the facts and circumstances of all the appellants were common and similar, therefore, the evidence and cross-examination of both the parties in the case of appellant, Sagheer Ahmad, was by consent was adopted as evidence on behalf of all the appellants and the respondent Mills. The learned Labour Court , thereafter had dismissed all the thirteen petitions, hence, these appeals-
5. Today, when these appeals were called for hearing, neither the appellants nor their Advocate, Mr. Mirza Muhammad Kazim were present. No intimation is sent. However, I have carefully perused the record and proceedings of the cases. There is a clear and specific admission I on behalf of the appellants that half of the looms of the respondent Mills were out-dated and were not in operation since January 1985 and that half wages were being paid to the appellants weavers and that thirty- two workers were removed in July 1985. The appellants had further admitted that the relations of the management and the C.B.A. Union in the respondent Mills had always been very cordial and the management had always provided maximum facilities to the workers in accordance with the provisions of labour laws. It is also an admitted fact on record that for about six/seven months, the respondent Mills continued to employ the appellants and pay them wages although the looms on which they were working were lying closed and that finally, when the respondent Mills found that there was no possibility of operating the closed looms in an economic and profitable manner, the services of the appellants were terminated by way of retrenchment showing bona fide and explicit reasons in the order of termination. Further, there is no evidence on record either to contradict the contentions of the respondent Mills or to prove that the respondent Mills had ousted them with a view to save money by employing new workers in their places at lower wages. In view of the above factual, legal and admitted position, the appellants have no case to maintain their grievance petitions, therefore, the learned Labour Court has rightly dismissed their grievance I petitions under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969.
6. For the reasons stated by me above, I see no reasons to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. All these thirteen I (13) appeals are dismissed accordingly.
M.Y.H./898/Lb.