' The instant decision would dispose of as many as 19 Appeals (Nos. FD-216/95 to 226/95, 232/95 to 236/95 and 239/95 to 241/95), having been preferred by the unsuccessful employees, whose grievance petitions under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 were on 6-8-1995 dismissed by the learned Punjab Labour Court No, 4, at Faisalabad.
2. Appellants were employees of the Lyallpur Cotton Mills, Faisalabad, their services were terminated, and they challenged the orders as being invalid and void, as the same were passed by the management, without affording them an opportunity of hearing. Permission of the Court for closing down the Mill, or a portion of it, and ouster of the appellants from employment of the mill, according to them, had not been obtained. They, therefore, sought reinstatement in service, with all the back benefits.
3. The stand-point of the respondent mill is that economic crisis and machinery breakdown had provided a valid basis for its closure or one of the 'wings', where the appellants were employed.
Heavy financial loss had forced the mill people to close it and dispense with the services of its employees. As it was not possible to run the mill any more, an agreement was executed between the management of the mill and the C.B.A. Representing the employees, and on the basis thereof permission of the Court was successfully sought for closure of the mill. There is considerable force in the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the respondent that in these circumstances service of show-cause notices upon the employees was not a prerequisite and the provisions of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 had not been flouted. I agree with the finding of the learned lower Court. Learned counsel for the appellants, has not been able to point out any illegality having been committed by the mill management in terminating the services of their employees, who could not plead that any secured or guaranteed right of theirs had been violated.
4. The appellants were ousted from service, long before the agreement between the management and the C.B.A. Was brought into being (on 3-7-1995). Old Spinning Section or Unit No, 1 of the mill was closed down in the year 1993. Now the entire mill has stopped its working and has no longer operational existence, and this fact is not disputed by the appellants. Obviously, then, they cannot be taken back on the rolls of the mill; they can lonely lay claim to back benefits, if any. For termination of services of the employees not exceeding 50%, the employer has an entitlement, which can lawfully be exercised. When in July, 1995, the management and the C.B.A. Had arrived at an agreement, the appellants were no longer the employees of the mill, having already been ousted, in the year 1993, on closure of Unit No, 1.
5. In so far as back benefits go, or entitlement to get salaries for a particular period is concerned, a plea to that effect could be incorporated in the grievance petition that was still pending, when the agreement in question was arrived at on 3-7-1995, whereby a section of the labour strength of the mill had been given 15 months emoluments, before termination of their service.
6. As regards the appellants' entitlement to retain the residential accommodation, the same may be asserted before the Illaqa Magistrate, who will have to be approached by the mill management, and in the event of employees' failure, they can have recourse to the Sessions Court, through a revision petition; but they cannot perpetuate their stay in the residential quarters over an indefinite period. Procedure has been provided in the Standing Order 16 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, and that will have 'to be followed by the mill proprietorship/management, in effecting ouster bf the employees from their abodes, situate within the premises of the mill. Legally an employee on his expulsion from service of an industry can retain residential accommodation for a maximum period of two months, as provided by the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. Unfortunately a chronic tendency has developed amongst members of the Labour Class not to leave residential quarters for months and years, after they have ceased to be employees of a particular establishment. If the mill people had asked them to quit, they were only enforcing their legal right. If any right to have residential accommodation exists, it would be enforceable by an employee, on his re-instatement in service, when the employer would be under a legal obligation to provide residential accommodation to the employee, or to make payment of the requisite dues to him in lieu thereof. It cannot be denied that such stage has not yet arrived; but the employees continue to stick to the residential accommodation and are not prepared to stage exit, much against their entitlement, and the Court cannot come to their rescue for perpetuation of such a wrong. Actually it has been held in 1994 SCM R 2213 that a terminated employee no longer remains a workman, entitled to invoke the provisions of section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Competence of the petition, as such, also appears to be doubtful. In any case, the appellants being no longer employees of the mill, when the agreement between the mill management and the C.B.A. Was arrived at, in July, 1995, they seem to be disentitled to claim back benefits allowed afterwards to the existing employees under the agreement; and they are certainly 'disqualified' to retain residential accommodation, after expiry of the statutory period, which is only two months.
7. This being the legal position, the appeal does not merit admission to regular hearing, and is dismissed in limine. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.