DECISION ' These appeals arise from the order of the Labour Court No, VI, Hyderabad, whereby the grievance petitions of 41 applicants workers in the respondent Textile Mills were dismissed.
2. The facts in brief are that the appellants/applicants 41 in number were permanent workers of Jupiter Textile Mills, Hyderabad. Excepting 5 unskilled workers the rest were all skilled workers. They were given one month's notice of termination and were required to collect their legal dues and leave after one month. The reasons given were that the Textile Mills had been incurring losses and at the meeting of the Directors it was resolved that re-organization should be effected by way of retrenchment. The circumstances prevalent at any time were also not favourable as minimum wages of unskilled workers had been raised with effect from 10-4-1993 and the 'prices of P.O.L. Had also gone up to devaluation of the rupee, but these circumstances were not solely responsible for the retrenchment as there were a few unskilled workers and increase in their wages came into effect after their retrenchment: The termination of the workers was, therefore, in accordance with Order 12 of the Standing Orders Ordinance as they were .Allowed their legal dues and the' termination was by one month's notice.
3. The only point raised in these cases by the learned Advocates on behalf of the workers is that section 11-A of the Standing Orders Ordinance has been violated. That there were in all 1100 workers out of whom 1000 workers had been terminated. That the number so terminated, exceeded 50% of the workmen and this was done without prior permission of the Labour Court in this behalf. Order 11-A reads as under:-- 11-A. Closure of establishment.---Notwithstanding anything contained in Standing Order 11, an employer shall terminate the employment of more than fifty per cent. Of the workmen or close down the whole of the establishment without prior permission of the Labour Court in this behalf, except in the event of fire, catastrophe, stoppage of power supply, epidemics or civil commotion.
3-A. Mr. Abdul Razzaq, General Manager has explained in reply to this objection that the workers were retrenched in batches and not all at once. That before retrenchment they had complied with Order 11-A by making an application to the Labour Court for permission to effect retrenchment of more than 50% of the workers. That they had, therefore, complied with Order 11-A also but it was for the Court to grant permission after deciding their application and they could not expedite the Court as they had no such powers.
4. On identical point there is a ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of South British Insurance Employees' Union v. The Sindh Labour Court and 4 others reported in 1975 SCM R 49. The placitum reads :-- "S.0.11-A Closure of Establishment Standing.---Order 11-A does not spell out any sequence of various steps to be taken in closure of establishment--Application to Labour Court for permission to close down--Need not be first step in process--Labour Court's permission--Court well be as last step in process."
5. The judgment by Anwarul Haq, J. Mentions as under:-- "It will be seen that the Standing Order does not stipulate that the application to the Labour Court for permission to close down should be the first step in the process. All that it prescribes is that no employer shall close down the whole of its establishment without prior permission of the Labour Court in this behalf. Thus the Labour Court's permission might indeed be the last step in the process of closing down, or an application in this behalf may be made by the employer simultaneously with any other step that he may have to take to wind up his business and close down his establishment. The Standing Order does not appear to us to spell out any sequence in which the various steps for closing down an establishment have to be taken by an employer, and, therefore, no question arises of the respondent having committed any illegality in this behalf. The petition is thus without merit and is hereby dismissed."
6. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court it cannot be said that Standing Order 11-A is not complied with nor can it be said that the termination of service of these 41 workers was mala fide.
Persons investing crores of rupees in the setting up Textile Mills will not close them down and let the mills remained idle just for any grudge or emotional dispute in respect of the workers. There is no question of mala fides and the reasons for the closure were, therefore, genuine.
7. Mr. Hamid Hussain raises another objection for the first time that his client Willayat Hussain was the senior most workers and he too was retrenched although about 100 workers were retained. He does not, however, know what particular work his client was doing as Order 13 applies to workmen only categorywise. May be that his client was the last person employed in that particular category.
Moreover, this objection does not find any place, in the grievance petition or affidavit. This point was not raised before the Labour Court as there is no mention about it in the entire judgment.
8. In the result the judgment and order of the Labour Court is maintained and all these 41 appeals are dismissed.