DECISION These six appeals call in question the common order of the Labour Court No.VI, Hyderabad dismissing the petitions with the prayer for reinstatement. The circumstances forming the background of these cases are as follows: The petitioners were working as weavers in the respondent-Mill for quite some time. Their services were terminated by identical letters on the ground that the same were no longer required. They however maintained that they were eased off because they had newly formed a Trade Union of their own, which was not to the liking of the respondent.
2. The petitioners had sent grievance notices but the respondents never chose to reply to the same.
They thereafter filed petitions before the Labour Court. The petitions came to be resisted.
3. The petitioners filed separate affidavits but by consent only Muhammad Anwar was cross- examined and his cross-examination was to be treated as on behalf of all the other petitioners.
4. Similarly the cross-examination of Abdul Ghaffar, the Personnel Manager of the respondent-Mill in Muhammad Anwar's case was the cross---examination in all the cases.
5. The Labour Court for the reasons given by it dismissed the petitions.
6. It is a trite proposition of law that the termination of a workman's services on the ground that the same is no longer required does not fulfil the requirement of Standing Order 12(3). The law enjoins that explicit reasons should be furnished so that it ensures that there is no colourable exercise of authority.
7. Mr. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi learned counsel for the appellants referred to the case of Ghulam Ahmed v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and others 1990 PLC (C.S.) 385 which is a decision of our Karachi Bench, in which it has been held that the mention of re-organisation at a later stage of the case is not enough.
8. The re-organisation as spoken by Abdul Ghani is in muted tone. All that has been said is that there was a division of more than half a dozen mills in the family in June 1989 and that had necessitated the re-organisation. No details have been given beyond this. Manifestly it is nothing more than an afterthought because talking of division he does not talk of financial problems. On the other hand he mentions that the respondents wanted improvements on scientific lines.
9. It is also to be seen that even on the showing of the witness of the respondent, there was no list prepared to show that the retrenchment was on the basis of "first come last go". I am therefore, clearly of the opinion that the termination of the services of the appellants was not legally brought about.
10. As a result the impugned order cannot be sustained and are set aside. However the appellants nowhere in the pleadings or in their statements had said a word that they were jobless because of this termination. Under the circumstances looking to the principles laid down in Muhammad Bashir v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal 1991 SCMR 2087 they will not be entitled to any back benefits.
Orders accordingly.