DECISION This is an appeal against an award of the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. V, Karachi, dated the 11th of February, 1974 in a reference made by the Government for adjudication of re-instatement of 21 workers said to have been illegally locked out by the respondent-Company on 31st January 1973 under the cloak of retrenchment on two-fold grounds namely, (1) the Company had suffered heavy losses during the Financial Year ending the 31st October 1972; (2) the State Bank of Pakistan had curtailed their overdraft facilities.
2. Mr. K. R. Jan, who appeared for the appellant-Union contended that the Company did not follow the principle of "Last Come First Go" which is provided under Standing Order 13 of the West Pakistan Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 (hereinafter called the 'Ordinance'). It is true it has been pleaded in the Statement of Claim at page 27 of the record of the learned Court. Under para. 6, it runs as under:-- "The Management has also not followed the principle of last in first out category-wise." It was stated by Mr. Jan that this fact has not been denied by the Company. On the other hand, Mr. M. A. Kban, the learned Representative for the respondent referred to para. I6 of the Reply Statement which is at page 53 of the record of the learned Court. It reads as under t-- "That the retrenchment was effected in accordance with the principle of first in last out and it was just a coincidence that five of the retrenched employees were office-bearers of the Union." It was for the Union to have not made mere general allegations but should have specifically stated as to who was senior to whom and who was retained! and the senior person retrenched. There is no such allegation. Mere general)^ allegation will not take the place of evidence. It should have in my opinion^ been specifically stated and proved as the burden lay on the shoulders of the) appellant-Union. I would hold that the principle suggested has not been violated in this case.
3. In the second place it was submitted that provisions of section 23-A and B have been violated. Section 23-A deals with shop stewards to act as link between Labour and Management. Their duty is specifically provided under sub-clause (5) of section 23-A. It reads as under:-- "The Shop Steward shall act as a link between the workers and the employer, assist in the improvement of arrangements for the physical working conditions and production work in the shop, section or department for which he is elected and help workers in the settlement of their problems either connected with work or with any such individual grievance of a workman as is referred to in subsection (1) of section 25-A." Section 23-B deals with the workers* participation in Management. It is ln respect of a factory employing 50 persons or more. In the first place section 23-B does not apply to the respondent-Company as it is not a factory. It deals in Import and Sales business.
4. It was also contended that section 25 of the Ordinance of I. R. O. of 1969 was not complied with. Section 25 of the Ordinance deals with functions of Works Council.
None of the clauses (a) to (e) of section 25 deals with retrenchment.
5. It was contended by Mr. Jan that the Company acted mala fide in retrenchment of 21 persons. There is no allegation in the Statement of the President, Mr. Nazeer Hussain Siddiqui as to how ihe Company has acted mala fide. No specific allegation has been made to that effect. On the other hand the admitted position is that when there was vacancy the retrenched employees were asked to join, they, however, could not be taken back as they were ill but in their place two of the previously retrenched employees were taken in service. The learned Court has given good reason for his conclusion that the allegation of victimization is totally false and unfounded.
6. Mr. Jan pointed out that there has been increase in the sale proceeds after retrenchment but this fact was mostly due to the increase in the price of the goods and not due to increase in the sale of the commodity in which the Company deals.
7. I may mention that Standing Order 14 takes good care of retrenched workmen. In case of re-employment within one year of retrenchment a notice by Registered Post has to be sent to the retrenched workmen of the category concerned offering re-employment according to their seniority.
8. The admitted position is that the relationship between the Union and the Company had always been so good that previous to the retrenchment of 21 workers others were retrenched with the consent and help of the Union itself. This goes to establish that the Company cannot be said to have been motivated to retrench 21 workers for any other consideration except that it had sufferred loss and that the State Bank had reduced its overdraft limits.
9. No other point was urged by Mr. K. R.
Jan, the learned Representative for the appellant.
10. For the reasons given above I would maintain the Award and dismiss the appeal.