1. This judgment will dispose of Appeals Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 30 of 1975. They are filed under section 36-D of the Industrial Rela--tions Ordinance, 1969. As same question of law is involved in them, therefore, they are taken together.
2. Khan Oil Mills Sargodha is a factory for crushing oil. The last crushing season ended in May 1974. All the 11 appellants were workers in the said factory. Their services were terminated at the close of season. The Management restarted its crushing season in November 1974. The appellants 11 in Number, filed separate petitions under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordi--nance, 1969 for re-instatement. Their greivance was that as they remained workers with the respondent in each previous season, therefore, they had a right to be re-employed. It was stated in all the petitions that they visited the factory within ten days of the commencement of the work but they were not re- employed. Aggrieved by the refusal of the employer, they knocked the door of the Junior Labour Court for re-instatement.
3. In each case, one of the preliminary objections of the employer was that Standing Order No. 14 of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 was not applicable in their case and so they had no guaranteed or secured right to come to the Court.
4. It appears that the view of the Junior Labour Court was that the appellants had no guaranteed or secured right to get re-employment. It was represented before the Junior Labour Court that the respondent-Mills was a seasonal factory and so the appellants bad a right to get re-employment.
5. Seasonal factory is defined in section 4 of the Factories Act, 1934. The Junior Labour Court held that the respondent-Mills does rot fall within the definition given in section 4 of the Factories Act, therefore no redress can be given to the appellants. In this view of the matter all the 11 petitions were dismissed. The appellants have come up in appeal.
6. The provisions of Standing Order No. 14 have not been properly appre--ciated by the lower Court.
7. This Standing Order runs as under:- "Re-employment of retrenched workmen.-Where any number of workmen are retrenched and the employer proposes to take into employ any person within a period of one year from the date of such retrenchment, be shall give an opportunity to the retrenched workmen belonging to the category concerned, by sending a notice by registered post to their last known addresses to offer themselves for re-employment, and they shall have preference over other persons, each having priority according to the length of his service under the emplo3er: Provided that in the case of a seasonal factory within the meaning of b section 4 of the Factories Act 1934 (XXV of 1934) a workman who was retrenched in one season and reported for duty within ten days of the resumption of work in the factory in the immediately following season shall be given ,reference for employment by the employer: Provided further that, in the case of such a seasonal factory, the employer may by sending notice by registered post to the last known address of a workman who was retrenched in one season require him to report on a day specified in the notice, not being earlier than ten days before resumption of work in such factory, and if such workman so reports he shall be given preference for employment and paid full wages from the day he reports."
8. The first part of this standing order relates to all the factories irrespective of the fact whether they are seasonal or not. It applies to all those factories where any workman has been retrenched and the employer proposes to take into his employ any person within a period of one year from the date of such retrenchment. As far as respondent-Mills is concerned its main function is to crush oil in a particular season. Ordinarily, its season starts in November and ends in May or June. It is an admitted fact between the parties that the respondent-Mills is functioning since 1966. In each year the working seasonal has remained the same. During the working seasons the respondent-Milli has been employing a number of workers and at the close of season their services are terminated.
9. Such a factory under the law cannot be termed as a seasonal factory. The reason is that only those factories would be termed seasonal which have been listed in section 4 of the Factories Act 1934. A list of 9 Factories have been given in this section. They include Cotton, Ginning, Cotton or Cotton Jute processing, decortications of ground nuts, manufacture of Coffee, Indigo, Lac, Rubber, Sugar (including Gur) and Tea and any factory which is not included in the above list will not be a seasonal factory. It is therefore, clear that the respondent-Mills will not fall in any of the provisions of Standing Order No. 14. Its case will fall in the first part of Standing Order No 14. x: accordance with the provisions .Of Standing Order 14 it is mandatory for the employer to give an opportunity to the retrenched workmen by sending notice by registered post to his last known address to offer him re-employment and such a worker shall have a preference over other workers.
10. The argument of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respon--dent-Mills was that the seasonal factories are of to types. According to him one type is of those seasonal factories which have been defined in section 4 of the Factories Act, and the other seasonal factories are those which have not been defined in the said Act. His argument was that she rights guaranteed under Standing Order 14 relate to those factories are those which have been defined under section 4 of the Factories Act. I see no force in the argument. Standing Order 14 is very clear. According to this section seasonal factories are that which have been defined in section 4 of the Factories Act and all the remaining factories, irrespective of the fact A whether the work is for a season or for the whole year are not seasonal factories. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that the respondent- Mills is not a seasonal factory. In its case every retrenched workman has a right to be re-employed and under the law it is the duty of the employer to offer opportunity of re-employment to the retrenched workman by sending a notice to him. The finding of the trial Court that the appellants have no secured or guaranteed right is reversed. I am afraid that all the cases have to be remanded. The lower Court did not record evidence in any case. They were disposed of on a preliminary objection. They were riot taken on merits. In each case the plea of the employer is not the same. In some cases he stated that the appellants did not work for the full season and in other cases he said that the notice was sent to them through Chowkidar. On these points evidence was required.
11. The result is that all the appeals are accepted and all the cases are remanded to the lower Court for fresh trial in accordance with the law. Parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 27 January 1975.