DECISION ' These are four separate appeals filed by different sets of appellants, against separate impugned orders, dated 22-7-1984, 5-9-1984, and 14-3-1987, passed by Sind Labour Court Nos. III and I at Karachi, respectively, who had dismissed all the four grievance petitions of the appellants under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969.
2. Briefly stated the facts of each appellant were that they had claimed to have been permanently working in different capacities for a different period of service in their concerned departments of the respondent mills and they were not only active members of the union but, also holding office of the union, so, as the respondent mills were not giving certain genuine and lawful benefits to the workers, therefore, they were agitating the same before the management by which it was annoyed with them, so, they were removed from their respective employments on different dates for the main and sole reason that as the management was suffering continuous financial losses so it had leased out its different sections/departments to the Contractors, hence, their services had been retrenched. Further it was a joint claim of the appellants that the so-called Contractor was not an independent Contractor and had not its own establishment and all the materials were being supplied by the respondent establishment and the products of the same were also being taken by the establishment as the officers of the management were looking after the administration and supervision of the workers. The appellants further claimed that even after the so-called retrenchment, juniors to them were still working in the establishment hence, they were victimized on account of their union activities and the so-called retrenchment of the workers was nothing, but, it was an attempt to crush the union of the workers. The case of all these appellants was further that by way of leasing out the sections/departments to the Contractors, the respondents mills had deprived the workers of their legitimate and lawful benefits, as the so-called Contractor did not make such payment. Being aggrieved, the appellants had served grievance notice upon the respondent mills followed by the grievance petitions.
3. The respondent mills had resisted each of the grievance petitions not only on the facts of each case, but, also on legal grounds. On merits of the case, it was resisted that admittedly the respondent mills had suffered heavy financial losses and it was difficult for the management to run its business so as a measure of re-organizations, it had retrenched all workers after fulfilling the legal requirements and then leased out its certain sections/departments to independent Contractors and for this purpose, it had neither contravened any provision of Law nor it was the legal requirement to seek permission from any Labour Court or authority to take such an action.
Therefore, it was incorrect to claim that the workers were retrenched on account of their union activities as a measure of victimization and that it was not correct that the Contractor was their employee or that they were supplying the raw material or taking the products from him or that they were looking after the work of the workers. It was also the claim of the respondent mills that all the workers, subsequently engaged by the Contractors were not their employees, but, actually they were the employees of the Contractors and that there was no relation of master and servant between the mills and the workers. As regards appellants, Hazrat Imam and Sher Muhammad, it had been claimed by the respondent mills that as these appellants had attained the ages of superannuation, therefore, they were rightly retired from their employments, thus on this ground also, they could not maintain their grievance petitions. It was further claimed that the same position was with regard to appellant, Muhammad Shakeel, as he was also retired from service as he had already crossed the age of more than 60 years and become old. As regards appellants, Abdul Jabbar and 16 others, their retrenchment on account of huge financial losses sustained by the management was quite lawful. Thus, the respondent mills claimed that none of the appellants was entitled to maintain their grievance petitions, which were liable to be dismissed.
4. All the respective parties led their respective evidence and they were duly cross-examined.
Thereafter the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned orders, hence these four separate appeals.
5. I have heard Mr. Shafiq Qureshi, the learned Advocate for each set of the appellants and Mr. All Amjad, the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent mills and have carefully perused the records and proceedings of each case as well as the written arguments, submitted by both the parties. At the very outset, I would observe here that the appellants have no case, therefore, their respective grievance petitions were rightly dismissed by the learned Labour Court. However, Mr. Shafiq Qureshi, the learned Advocate for the appellants has argued that the termination of services of the appellants on an alleged ground of huge financial losses could not be proved by the respondents mills. Admittedly, there is an evidence on record in support of this contention that the respondent mills had sustained financial losses and the appellants had miserably failed to bring on record in rebuttal of this contention. Mr. Shafiq Qureshi, the learned Advocate has pleaded that before effecting the alleged retrenchment of the workers, it was incumbent upon the respondent mills to seek permission under section 47, I.R.O., 1969, but, in the present case, the management had done nothing so, particularly, in the circumstances that most of the workers, were either active members of the union or the office-bearers. It was claimed by him that in view of this, it could not be said that the Contractor was independent and the workers were not the employees of the mills.
In support of his arguments, Mr. Shafiq Qureshi had referred me to a Decision of this Tribunal in Appeals Nos. Kar-332 and Kar-333/85, dated 27-8-1986. After an examination of the evidence and documents brought on record of all the present four cases and after consideration of all relevant legal aspects of the case, I am of the opinion that the facts, circumstances and other aspects of the referred cases and altogether different and distinguishable, hence, not applicable to the present four appeals. Taking into consideration the evidence brought on record and the legal position of these four appeals, I would hold that Mr. Shafiq Qureshi, the learned Advocate for the appellants has no case.
6. On the other hand Mr. All Amjad, the learned Advocate for the respondent mills has stressed upon the fact that as the retrenchment of the workers was bona fide and justified on financial constraints and that in Law, no permission in such cases was required to be obtained in terms of section 47, I.R.O., 1969. And that the employer was also not required even to either consult the C.I3A or joint Management Board before effecting any such bona fide retrenchment. Therefore, any malice or mala fides could not be claimed against the management. A reliance in this respect, was placed by Mr. All Amjad, the learned Advocate in support of this pleadings and after examination of these cases in Appeals Nos. Kar-98 to 102/86 decided by his Tribunal on 1-3-1987, and 1966 PLC 268 I would hold that the retrenchment, in question, was quite justified and reasonable. As regards the issue that the respondent mills was not justified to effect retrenchment on financial grounds, Mr. All Amjad, the learned Advocate for the respondent mills has placed reliance on a case reported in 1961 PLC 1169. As regards the point that it is the right of the management to reorganize its sections or departments and to do away with the services of employees surplus to their requirements, Mr. Ali Amjad, the learned Advocate C for the respondent mills has placed his reliance on a number of cases reported in 1983 PLC 121, 1286; 1961 PLC 1169; 1985 PLC 989; 1969 PLC 605; 1969 PLC 459; 1984 PLC 1554. On the point that in case of retrenchment, no violation of section 47, I.R.O. 1969 was committed, reliance can safely be placed on the cases reported in 1965 PLC 216 and 1987 PLC 852. Mr. Ali Amjad, the learned Advocate for the respondent mills has contended that even in the case of office-bearers, no permission was required to be obtained and in support of this assertion, he has referred me to cases, reported in 1969 PLC 459; 1979 PLC 59 and 1981 PLC 361. As regards the issue that an employer has a right to enter into a contract and for the execution of the work, it is open for the Contractor to employ his own workmen and such employees, engaged by the Contractor, would not be the employees of the employer and/or the respondent mills but, of the Contractor, I am fortified with the cases reported in 1985 SCMR 275, 1987 SCM R 1463; 1983 PLC 981; 1980 PLC 301, unreported Decision in Civil Petition No, 39/77 and a Decision of this Tribunal in Appeal No, KAR-50/84. The recent authority relied upon is reported in 1987 PLC 852 wherein it was held, as under: "Moreover, mere leasing out of a department in the mill to a contractor cannot ipso facto attract the provisions of section 47 (1) unless it is shown that conditions of service of workmen have been altered to their disadvantage during the pendency of an industrial dispute."
' In the present four appeals the appellants had miserably failed to establish that the respondent mills had altered the service conditions to their disadvantage. Taking into consideration the evidence, facts, circumstances and the legal aspects of all these four cases, I am of the view that the appellants could not maintain their grievance petitions under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969 which were rightly dismissed by the learned Labour Courts.
7. For the reasons discussed by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned orders and would maintain the same. The result would be that all the four appeals are accordingly dismissed.