DECISION ' These four appeals call in question the order of the Labour Court No,IV, Karachi, -whereby the petitions under section 25-A of I.R.O. Praying for reinstatement in service were dismissed. The circumstances in which these arose succinctly stated, are as follows:
2. The petitioners were working as Chowkidars with the respondents for three/four years, but Chinar Gul alleges to have been with them for 22 years. Their services came to be terminated as per letter dated 14-9-1991. These letters read as under: "Whereas on over all assessm ent and evaluation of the Security arrangement, the Management in order to reorganize the work and Security measures has decided to terminate the services of Security Staff by substituting a new and modern system through outer agency.
' To implement the new system, your services are hereby terminated with effect from 14-9-1991 A.N.
With one month notice pay. You may collect your dues if any from our Accounts Department H.O.
By producing a clearance certificate as per factory rules."
' On receipt of these letters the petitioners had sent grievance notices on 23-9-1991 and as there was no redress grievance petitions came to be filed before the Labour Courts which also contain prayer for payment of certain benefits under a Settlement arrived at between the employers and the C.BA. On 26/27-9-1990.
3. The petition came to be resisted on the ground that they were not workmen and that there was misjoinder of claims. It went on to say that the petition was misconceived as valid reasons had been given for the termination of their services.
4. Apart from themselves the petitioners had examined Muhammad Javed, the General Secretary of their Union, while Syed Amjad Ahmed, Factory Manager, appeared on behalf of the respondents.
5. The Labour Court found that the termination was in accordance with the requirement of law and that the benefits claimed by the petitioners could not be considered, as the grievance notices did not contain any specific details or particulars of the benefits under the Settlement. Otherwise too, they had not proved their demands on that score.
6. It is a truism that an employer can take his own decision for the running or the administration of his venture. All that we have to see is, whether the action taken is bona fide and in good faith, and further that no bneach of law is involved.
7. In all these cases it is an admitted position that the appellants were replaced by four guards through an Agency in the name and style of Security Guards Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited. The appellants were getting a pay between Rs,1,000 to Rs,1,400 per month while the guards who came in their place are getting a pay of Rs,3,400 per month.
8. Syed Amjad Ahmed has stated that the present guards are trained hands, and though not armed all the time on duty, they carry arms when big amounts have to be brought from the Banks for the payment of salaries and other purposes. The extra expenses have "to be borne looking to the chaotic law and order situation prevailing in the Metropolis. He has produced a copy of the Contract between the respondents and the Contractors. Clause 10 thereof reads as follows:-- "The Contractors undertake to indemnify the owner of actual losses not exceeding Rs,5,00,000 (Rupees five lacs) in respect of each loss, occasioned or caused by or resulting directly from the negligence or infidelity of its employees provided the Contractor shall not in any manner be responsible for any losses occasioned or caused by or resulting from the conduct (omissions and commissions) of the employees of the owner."
' This indemnity clause should also be very comforting to the respondents.
9. It was argued on behalf of the appellants that they had been removed as they had refused to give evidence on behalf of the respondents against the workers in the cases of breach of Settlement. But that is nothing more than a mere embellishment, signifying nothing. Instinuations are not enough. An allegation is to be proved and that was not even attempted.
10. It cannot, therefore, be said that the termination of services of the appellants is colourful or in the exercise of authority which is not lawful.
11. The appellants have also preferred claims under certain terms of the settlement referred to earlier. I have held earlier that the claim .Of any outstanding dues should not be combined with the petitions for reinstatement in service. Mr. Shafiq Qureshi, learned counsel for the appellants has referred to the case of Pak Suzuki Motor Co. Ltd. v. Abdul Rehman and others 1992 PLC 198 an earlier decision of this Tribunal. It is not necessary to examine this position as no details have been given in the grievance notices. Nor can it be said that they have satisfactorily proved their claims.
12. In the result the four appeals are dismissed.