DECISION This is an appeal against an award of the Presiding Officer of Labour Court No. IV, Karachi, dated 15-11-1973, whereby the learned Labour Court ordered the appellant to implement the agreement, dated 9th March 1973, and to give the remaining work of Smoke Jackets to the workers inside the factory forthwith and they were restrained from offering the work to outsiders. The facts briefly put are these.
2. On 28th August 1972, the appellants took a contract from Government to supply 1,10,000 Jackets to Government. Admittedly, the appellants are Government Contractors.
The Union went on strike on 23rd February 1973, which continued uptill 9th March 1973, when an agreement was entred into between the parties about the rate of stitching. On this date, the strike also was withdrawn. On 9th May 1973, a notice terminating the services of 283 workers was given.
Another notice was given on 30th May 1973, terminating the services of 122 workers. Thus, the services were terminated on the ground mainly that the appellant concern was in financial difficulty and they had no work. They had agreed to pay their legal_ dues. It is noteworthy that the notices terminating the services of these workers also gave a guarantee that if they have any work, they will give preference to these persons.
3. Mr. S. M. Saeed for the appellant contended, in the first place, that the company had suffered financial loss because of the withdrawal of one of the partners of the concern, who took away a major part of the assets of the company and thus making it impossible for the appellant to carry out the contract within the time stipulated in the contract. This is, in my Opinion, an irrelevant question. The only question is as to whether there was still work with the company to be done by the Workers of the Union. It would appear from the cross- examination of Manzoor Ahmad that the contention of Mr. Saeed that they had other units is not correct He stated as under :-- "It is not a fact that this has no other branch, except these two.*' 1 have gone through the affidavit of Mr. Zaman, the Proprietor of the appellant-Firm. He has not stated anything to the contrary.
4. The next question for consideration is as to whether any work was still available for the Union workers or not. It would appear from the register produced by the appellant that payment had been made for sewing and stitching only about 32000 Jackets. It is not the case of the appel lant that they had paid for more jackets. It was for the appellant to have produced the documents, which naturally must be in their possession to prove the extent of work carried out, out of the contract entered into on 28th August 1972, relating to 1,10,000 Jackets. 1 agree with the conclusion of the learned Labour Court that the termination notices were not bona fide as there was sufficient work for the Union workers.
5. Mr. Saeed, in the next place contended, that issues Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are not inter-connected and the learned Labour Court should not have tried them together. There is not much force in this contention. They are very much inter-connected.
Issue No. 1, related to the Agreement dated 9th March 1973, about the execution of the contract of 1,10,000 Smoke Jackets by the workers of the factory. The second issue was about another agreement dated 2nd April 1973. The third issue was about the two termination notices, if they were bom fide. They had to be dealt together as the finding of the one could have bearing on the other two. If the contract was carried out by the factory workers according to the agreement dated 9th March 1973, and the company violated the same by giving the contract to someone else, it will have an effect on the termination notices that they were not bom fide. I agree with the conclusion of the learned Labour Court that the two termination notices were not bom fide, as admittedly, the Company employed more than 600 workers and they terminated the services only of 408 workers.
There still remain over 200 workers. It cannot, therefore, be concluded that the company is not in a position to carry out its business. This conclusion, however, will not affect the application made by the appellant under section 11 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
7. In the result, the award of the learned Labour Court is maintained and the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.