DECISION These are two appeals against an award of the learned Presiding Officer of Sind Labour Court No. I, Karachi, dated July 21, 1973, whereby the learned Labour Court directed the respondent to pay to the appellants one month's Notice Pay and other outstanding legal dues within one month of the award. The case of the appellants was that their services were terminated in January 1972. The services of Akram Khan were terminated on 24th January 1972, while that of Gul Rasul were terminated on 18th January 1972. The case of the respondent was that they had closed their factory at Karachi because it was running at a loss and shifted to Kotri. Both the appellants filed their affidavits. They were not cross-examined. No evidence was led on behalf of the respondents.
2. The learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that the appellants were permanent workmen.
He refused to order their re-instatement on the ground that the factory had been shifted to Kotri.
The learned Labour Court ordered one month's Notice Pay and payment of ther outstanding legal dues to the appellants.
3. Mr. Badshah Khan, the learned Advocate for the appellants, contended that the learned Labour Court had not taken into consideration Paragraph 9 of the affidavit of the appellants. It runs as under : , "That the respondent once again has re-started his factory at Karachi."
4. Mr. Badshah Khan contends that the above statement on behalf of the appellants remains unchallenged. If the respondent, Abdul Malik has restarted the factory at Karachi, he would be liable to re-instate the appellants in view of the statement of the appellants, which remains unchallenged. I would order the respondent to re-instate the appellants, if he had re-started his factory again at Karachi. I have made this conditional order, as Abdul Malik himself appeared and stated that no such factory had been started by him at Karachi. I may also note, in this connection, that there is no such mention in the applications of the appellants that the respondent had restarted his factory afresh at Karachi. It is only in their affidavits that it was stated that the Management had re-started the factory at Karachi. However, the fact remains that the statement of the appellants about the restart of the factory has not been challenged in the cross- examination. Therefore, if the same factory had been started afresh by the respondent at Karachi, the appellants would be entitled to re-instatement.
5. In case, Abdul Malik has not restarted his factory at Karachi, the order of the learned Labour Court is maintained.
6. The appeals are allowed to the extent that I have observed in the previous paragraph.