DECISION These are three appeals two arise out of common Order of the learned labour Court No. v. Karachi, On the Ist of February 1974. I propose V dispose of these 3 ...Appeals by common Order as the main point involved; is common to all the three appeals. The learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that the provisions of Standing order 12 was not observed inasmuch as the appellant- Company did not give specific reasons in writing for terminating the services of the respondents.
The law applicable at the time when the-services of the respondent were terminated admittedly did not. :: require the reasons to be stated in writing. I would, therefore, modify the observation of the learned Court in that respect.
2. The case of the respondents was that as they have been retrenched -f the appellant-Company should have given them a notice in writing before ' employing any other person. The case of the appellant-Company, however, was that they have not employed any new person. They have only taken persons who were already working with the Company. Mr. Lodhi for the respondents pointed out that the Company had failed to establish that the persons working in place of the respondents were in 'the employment - of the appellant-Company. In this connection Mr. Lodhi made a reference to the, r cross-examination of Mr. Mohammad Osman, Personnel Officer of the appellant- Company. -It runs as under: "Abdul Hamid is working in our Group since 1948. I produce a Service Card Exh 4.B and Abdul Majeed since 11-4-1969 while Mr. Ahmed since 1-12-1964. I produce Service Card Exhs. 4-C. And 4-D.
Wahid Textile Mills is separately registered under the 'Factories Act and Excise Department. So also Abdul Latif &Co. Eastern Chemical was in Chittagong."
A reference may also be made to Exh. 4-B. The relevant portion relied upon by Mr. Lodhi reads as under: "Joined Messrs A. Latif & Co. Ltd:, a sister concern of Messrs Bawany Industries Ltd., on 1st January 1948 and I have been transferred from A. Latif & Co. To Messrs Bawany Industries Limited, S. 1. T. E., Karachi, on 25-7-1971"
The services of Abdul Qadir were terminated on 24th of July 1971. Mere statement in Service Card that some concern is a sister concern does not establish that the concern is a sister concern. In fact as Messrs A. Latif & Co. Ltd., was established in East Pakistan and therefore it cannot be said to be a sister concern for all intents and purposes. It must have been regis--tered in East Pakistan.
Moreover the admitted position, as the cross-exami--nation of Mr. Osman, Personnel Officer, shows they are separately registered under the Factories Act and Excise Department. I would hold that the concerns in which Messrs Abdul Hamid, Abdul Majeed and Ahmed were serving were independent legal entities for all intents and purposes. The Com--pany has failed to establish that they were sister concerns of the appellant --Company. There is no evidence to establish the rule or practice that the services of a workman can be transferred from one independent concern to another independent concern. It was for the appellant-Company to prove this aspect of the case. In absence of any evidence I have come to the conclusion that Messrs Abdul Hamid, Abdul Majeed and Ahmed appointed soon after terminating the services of the respondents.
3. Mr. Samad contended that the respondent's applications should have been dismissed for non- compliance of the provision of section 25-A of the industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969. In this connection he made a reference to Saleem sons' case (PLD 1973 Kar. 1) in which it has been held that the provisions of Standing Order, 18(b) are mandatory in the case of Nasim Silk Industries (PLD 1974 Kar, 80.). Dorab Patel, J. Held that the provisions of section 25-A are pari materia with Standing Order 18(b) and, therefore, non-compliance of the provisions of section 25-A is fatal to any proceeding under the said section. I respectfully agree with the observations made by the Sind & Baluchistan High Court in these two cases. Mr. Lodhi, for the respondents, contended that as soon as the respondents came to know that when the Company had employed some new persons in violation of the provisions of Standing Order 14 they made grievance petition to the Company. Mr. Lodhi conceded that the respondents have no grievance against - the termination of their service.
They have a grievance only when they employ new persons in violation of Standing Order 14. 1 would hold that the respondents have complied with the provisions of section 25-A of the Ordinance and, therefore, the application is maintainable.
4. The main point for consideration in these appeals was as already mentioned as to whether Messrs Abdul Hamid, Abdul Majeed and Ahmed were newly appointed after the services of the respondents were terminated in violation of the Standing Order 14. In the absence of any proof that the concerns in which the said three persons were working belonged to the appel--lant-Company or that there was any rule, practice or agreement that a workman serving in any of the concerns in which these persons were serving could be transferred to the appellant-Company. I would hold that the company has failed to prove that they were not appointed in violation of Standing Order 14.