By the present judgment are proposed to be disposed of 91 appeals (8 Appeals Nos. 6 to 13 of 1997) having been filed by the mill management against the employees, Sardar Ahmad and others, and 83 Appeals Nos. 16 to 98 of 1997, having conversely been preferred by Sardar Ahmad etc. Employees against the mill management. Proceedings of the grievance petitions, filed by the employees under section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, in the learned Labour Court at Bahawalpur, were consolidated, and a common judgment was delivered, accepting the grievance petitions, excepting, of course, the claims of the employees as regards their back benefits. Sardar Ahmad etc. Employees have, by filing counter appeals, laid claims to back benefits as well.
2. Services of the employees were terminated by the mill management through retrenchment, as they had been rendered surplus in consequence of re-organisation. The employees, however, maintained that this could not be done, as they had become permanent and their services could not be dispensed with, in the summary manner it was done. They were ousted from service allegedly in an illegal, as also mala fide, manner, as persons even junior to them were retained and they were victimised on account of their trade union activities. Explicit reasons were not stated in the termination letters, which were also not issued by the employer.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the mill management that private institutions do not maintain lists of seniority of their employees, and even those in Government service cannot insist upon preparation of such lists as a vested right, in so far as the Federal Government employees are concerned. It is urged that preparation and maintenance of seniority list is not a requirement of law, as in the provisions of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 it does not find mention anywhere.
Terminations, it is submitted, took place as a result of an undertaking or assurance given by the General Secretary of the Union, who was fully cognizant of the fiscal position of the mill, four managements of which had, in succession, been changed and the mill was continuously running deficit (balance sheets being Exhs. R-8 to 10). The directors etc. Had also submitted their resignations and replaced by new incumbents, as indicated by the documents Exhs. R. 4 and 5; and in any case it was not a routine affair. By promulgation of section 144, Cr.P.C. (Exh.R.6), the affairs were being conducted from 1981 onwards, and some members of the managerial staff/owners had even been convicted and fined under Sugar Factories Control Act in the year 1989 (Exh. R. 7). The Mill management had even approached the N.I.R.C., and the General Secretary of !The Workers' Union, as respondent there, had filed written statement in the year 1993, initially contesting the petition filed under section 22-A(8)(g) Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and then making a conceding statement, an undertaking having been given about non-commission of unfair labour practices. The petition, aforementioned, was ultimately withdrawn on 28-10-1993, by the learned counsel, representing the mill management, in presence of the Secretary-General of the Trade Union and in view of a statement made by Mr. Javed Jalal, Advocate, on behalf of the respondents, members of the union (Exhs. R. 15 to 17). Exh. R. 18 indicates that a mutual agreement between the Management and the C.B.A. Had been arrived at in collaboration with the Conciliator of the Labour Department. Mill Management had been allowed by the C.B.A. To terminate the services of the surplus workers and members of the staff, obviating the possibility of closing down of the project as a whole. It was also agreed that a fresh job analysis of the workers and staff, in all sections and units of the mill, would be undertaken, and general retrenchment would be resorted to, although an endeavour would be made to keep it to the minimum. To avoid frustration of the working class, as also impairment of their efficiency and productivity. The Legal Representative of the Mill was advised to withdraw all the cases against the Union pending in the N.I.R.C., on reciprocal basis, for maintaining good relations between the parties. On behalf of the employees it has been urged before me that the C.B.A. Had acted in league with the mill management and the General Secretary was in its pocket. I am afraid, this oral assertion cannot be given any weight, as C.B.A., as is well-known represented the working class, being their collective body, duly certified as C. B. A.
4. The agreement, aforementioned, also appeared to be in the interests of the working class as well, as there was every apprehension of closing down of the mill and collapse of the project as a whole. On behalf of the mill management it has been said that the C.B.A. Office-bearers had acted in collaboration with the mill management and drawn up a list of those who were to be struck of the rolls of the concern, but some of the employees maintained that this was done in a dishonest and mala fide manner, as they had put in decades of service continuously and were not liable to ouster, viewed from any standard. The workers could very well make a request to the Court to ask the mill management to tender the relevant record and to show to the Court that the principle of 'first come, last go' had been observed, while preparing lists of the workers, whose retrenchment was under way, and that reduction in the number of employees had been made under sheer necessity. I would not agree with the view-point of the learned counsel for the mill management that this principle, it was not incumbent upon the management, to follow. What else are the Labour Laws meant for? The Labour Courts and this Tribunal have to see that unfair treatment is not meted out to the members of the labour class. The N.I.R.C. Functions to curb unfair labour practices. I would not, however, dispute the right of the management to reduce the number of workers, in view of financial constraints. The record reveals that the mill was facing real financial difficulties; but while going through the retrenchment process it had essentially to be seen, as to who amongst the workers were temporary, ad hoc or work-charged, and who amongst them had attained the status of permanent workers.
5. Mr. Javed Jalal, Advocate, has pointed out that the. Person, who has been examined as R. W. 1, to bring forth the. View-point of the mill management, was not in the employment of the mill at the relevant the. That may be true, but he could certainly depose from the record and as regards the data and facts in existence. Since, however, the employees have not been able to establish that the management had resorted to 'pick and choose', and victimisation in the process of retrenchment had, in a manifest manner, been done, the assertion that they were made victim of vengeance and the exercise was undertaken to deprive them of their annually calculated amenities cannot be believed. According to the learned counsel for the employees, the employer's petition before the N. I. R. C. Had been withdrawn, which development would indicate that the management had not a fair case. It is, however, to be borne in mind in this respect that this had been done on an undertaking given by the C.B.A. And a settlement made by their counsel before the N.I.R.C.
6. In so far as the question of termination letter having incompetently been issued is concerned, it may be mentioned that the General Manager had instructed the Admn. Manager to at in the matter and the Labour Court has also endorsed this assertion of the employer and come to the conclusion that the employees had not been ' shunted out', owing to their trade union activities, although the exercise was undertaken in no bona fide manner and principle of seniority was not strictly adhered to, while curtailing the number of workers, according to the Court below.
7. I find myself inclined to differ with the findings arrived at by the learned Labour Court and would set aside the impugned judgments. The appeals preferred by the mill management are hereby accepted, although with no order as to costs. The orders terminating the services of the employees are maintained. Their claim to back benefits, as such, would be rendered as invalid and untenable; and the appeals filed by the employees all consequently fail and are hereby dismissed, again with no order as to costs.