This is an appeal against the decision dated 19-5-1976 of Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore.
2. Mahboob Ahmad Khan, Mohammad Yousaf, Bashir Ahmad. Abdur Rehman and Zia Ullah, appellants were permanent employers of Messrs Sethi Straw Board Mills, Ltd., Rahwali. They were laid of on 2-1-1976, as they had demanded bonus of to and half months wages, Statutory Bonus etc. The services were retrenched by separate letters dated 6-1-1976. There--after, the Union of the appellants challenged their retrenchment orders before the Labour Court, which passed an interim order. That interim order was set aside by the High Court in a Writ Petition filed by the Management.
After that the C. B. A. Union entered into a settlement with the Management dated 14.2-1976. The clause (2) which is relevant for the purpose of this case reads as follows: ----- "It is agreed that all the workers who were retrenched vide notice of Retrenchment dated 6th January, 1976 as well as the workmen who are on the rolls of the mills will voluntarily tender their resignations from service of the mills and the Management shall accept the same."
3. That settlement was with regard to 131 workers mentioned in the notice of retrenchment-dated 6-1-1976. In that list the names of the appellants do not figure. After that the resignations were obtained from all the workers including the appellants and their dues were paid. The aforementioned appellants filed separate petitions under section 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, claiming re-instatement on the ground that their resignations were obtained by coercion, undue influence and fraud. It was also alleged that the afore-mentioned settlement was not binding on them. The learned Labour Court consolidated all the five petitions and dismissed the same vide decision under appeal.
4. Aggrieved by the above decision, Mahboob Ahmad Khan, Mohammad Yousaf, Bashir Ahmad, Abdul Rehman and Zia Ullah, appellants have preferred a joint appeal.
5. On 13-9-1976 arguments were heard in the appeal and the order was reserved. On 21-9-1976 written arguments by the respondent were received by post. Since the arguments in the appeal had concluded on 13-9-1976, and the order was reserved, they could not be taken into consideration, when the other party was not present. In any case this procedure adapted by the respondent was highly objectionable. I vide my order dated 21-9-1976 directed that they may be filed.
6. The representative of the appellants contended that the settlement dated 14-2-1976 was not binding on the appellants, because their names did not figure in the notice of retrenchment dated 6-1-1976, upon which the afore- A mentioned settlement was arrived at. The contention of the Representative has great force and, therefore, I hold that the aforementioned settlement was not binding on them.
7. Further I find that according to Standing Order 12 (3) of the W. P Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1969 the services of a workman shall not be terminated nor shall a worker be s removed, retrenched, discharged or dismissed from service, except by an order in writing which shall explicitly state the reason for the action taken. On perusal of the retrenchment letters dated 6-1-1976 issued to the appellants I find that no reason has been given for their retrenchment, which is a clear violation of Statute. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that since the appellants had submitted their resignations and had finally settled their accounts with the respondent, they had no cause of grievance at all to take the matter to the Labour Court. This contention has no force, because there cannot be any estoppel against a Statute. BV agreement the provisions of the Statute could not be overridden. I at fortified in this view by the judgment of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 799 of 1974 entitled Sethi Straw Board Mills Ltd., Rahwali v. Punjab Labour Court No. 3, Lyallpur and others (PLD 1977 Lah. 71). The same view was previously expressed by me in the cases, Kamran Company (Regd.), Rawalpindi and another v. Employees' Union (1975 PLC 142) and Premier Cloth Mills Ltd., Lyallpur v. Rehmat Ali (1975 PLC 646).
8. In the result I hold that the orders of retrenchment of the appellants were illegal.
9. I, accordingly, accept the appeal, set aside the decision of the learned Labour Court and direct that the appellants be re-instated with back benefits.