DECISION ' Both the parties have filed their Written Arguments.
' These eleven appeals arise from the order of the Sindh Labour Court No, 1, Karachi, whereby the petitions of the appellants under section 25-A of the I.R.O. For re-instatement were dismissed.
2. Since all the sets of appeals involve the common facts and law they will be disposed of by this common judgment.
3. All these eleven appellants were employed in various capacities as Manufacturing Assistants, Process Operators, Welders-cum-Fitters, Moulding Operators, Outdoor Representative and Heavy Duty Mechanic/Generator Operator with the respondent Pharmaceutical company. As a result of reorganisation the company closed down a section of their Industrial Establishment because they were running into losses and they terminated the services of the appellants simpliciter under section 12(3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968.
4. It is the case of the employers that they have not been served with any grievance notice said to have been sent by registered post. It is the case of the workers that the order of termination was not passed by the employer but these orders were passed by the Chief Executive. It is also the workers' grievance, that they had formed a trade union and they have, therefore, been victimized and the order is mala fide. The learned Labour Court found that the grievance notice had been duly served. That the services were terminated by the Chief Executive to whom the powers were delegated by the employer and their services were terminated on account of closing down of the Security Department Section of the employers and closing of the Plastic Bottle Manufacturing Department. The learned Labour Court also found that the termination was valid and legal under Standing Order 12(3) as the company has produced documentary evidence that they had closed down their Section on account of re-organisation and no one has been appointed after their termination.
5. It is the case of Mr. S.P. Lodhi on behalf of the appellants that the appellants were senior workers and their services could be transferred from one category to another category instead of being terminated. But this is not permissible under the law. It is also the case of Mr. S.P. Lodhi that the termination orders were mala fide due to union activities but this has not been proved. On the other hand Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Khan for the company has pointed out that the Plastic Moulding Bottle Manufacturing Department was closed and all the workers in that Department were terminated. That the Security Department is also closed. That security functions were given to a Contractor Agency as an economic measure. That the allegations that junior workers were appointed after termination of the appellants has not been proved by evidence. The appointments of junior officers have to be shown to be in the same category in which retrenchment was made.
6. Thus, the order of termination was neither illegal nor mala fide and there is no ground for interference with the order of the Labour Court. These appeals are accordingly dismissed.