' Sardar Ghulam Abbas Khan, Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 9, camping at Muzaffargarh, on 8-6-1993, accepted Saleem Pervaiz Hashmi's grievance petition filed under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, against the General Manager, Layyah Sugar Mills, Layyah. His reinstatement with back benefits within 15 days of announcement of the judgment was ordered. This judgment has been appealed against by the Layyah Sugar Mills.
2. Saleem Pervaiz got employment with the Layyah Sugar Mills in the year 1977 and was removed from service in the year 1986. The Labour Court dismissed his grievance petition, but his appeal was allowed on 4-4-1989 by this Tribunal, with the result that he again became an employee of the mill.
Once again, on 28-1-1991, his services were terminated, allegedly owing to reorganization of the establishment of the mill. He successfully challenged this order before the Labour Court at Multan.
His main plea is that he had been victimized on account of his trade union activities. He was office- bearer of Mazdoor Ittehad Union, rival faction being Mujahid Mazdoor Union, having been operating allegedly with the active support of the management of the mill.
3. In proof of his plea that he was subjected to vindictiveness by the mill management he has said that on his reinstatement, in April, 1989, in obedience to the orders of this Tribunal, he was not permitted to perform the duties of dispenser but was given missed assignments. He was gatekeeper for some time and then he worked in the labour office over certain length of period.
Thus he was publicly insulted and pressure was brought to bear upon him by the management in order to make him understand the disliking of the employer for his trade union activities.
4. Although he was a qualified dispenser and had his education up to F.Sc., another person, junior to him Mukhtar Humayun by name, was posted as the Head Dispenser. He was not a qualified diploma-holder, was undermatric and was also junior to Saleem Pervaiz Hashmi. The appellant before this Court, as respondent before the Labour Court, had taken up the plea that in accordance with the terms and conditions of his service, Saleem Pervaiz Hashmi could at any time asked to quit and this time his services were dispensed with for no other reason but on account of reorganization. On a perusal of the impugned judgment I have been convinced that the learned lower Court has examined the issue in its true perspective and arrived at a correct conclusion. I agree with the opinion expressed by the learned Court below that the respondent will be governed by the provisions of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
Ordinance, 1968, and not by the terms and conditions set forth in a unilateral manner by the employer. How could an employee be ousted from service just according to the whims of the mill management/proprietorship ? Law and not the personal wishes of the proprietors would rule supreme. I would endorse the observation of the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court that termination simpliciter was not possible and the employee could only be ousted from service on valid and permissible premises and legally sustainable grounds. Similarly, the finding that by nature of the duties performed by Mr. Hashmi, about which there is no dispute, he was to be treated as a workman, entitled to have recourse to the Labour Forum, for redressing his grievance, as regards his removal from service is unexceptionable.
5. In so far as issue of re-organisation and curtailment of staff, claimed by the mill management to have taken place, is concerned, it appears that it was only a device made use of in a treacherous fictitious and mala fide manner by the mill people, since one Muhammad Ramzan had been employed in place of Saleem Pervaiz Hashmi as dispenser in February, 1995, and, as already said, Mukhtar Humayun had also been working as Head Dispenser. Both of them, however, left their jobs, it has been so stated, in the course of arguments; and Saleem Pervaiz has practically been reinstated in service.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has tried to convince the Court that the job of dispenser in the dispensary of the mills has become surplus, as a whole-time doctor has been appointed. Earlier there was a part-time doctor, who used to visit the dispensary off and on. Well, it is a fallacious, if not a stupid, plea taken up by the mill management. A doctor, whether whole-tiine or part-time, always stands in need of services of a dispenser and in actual practice the two persons abovenamed have been performing the job in question. Actually, it appears, the mill people were on the look-out to get rid of Mr. Saleem Pervaiz Hashmi, on one pretext or the other and they invented an excuse, namely, that of re-organization or retrenchment of the establishment. It is to be noted that just one person, Saleem Pervaiz Hashmi, became the target. It has rightly been remarked by the learned Labour Court that if at all there had to take place any retrenchment or curtailment in the service strength of the mill, an employee junior to Saleem Pervaiz Hashmi was to go and there was no justification for retaining a junior and asking a senior to quit. No evidence has been led to the effect that any financial crisis had occurred, the production had experienced decline and the income had faced deficit. Even if that be so, termination of services of only one person, namely Saleem Pervaiz Hashmi, would not have made any material difference. The plea of reorganization, as such could not be upheld, particularly as it was attended by lack of bona fides.
Mr. Saleem Pervaiz Hashmi's assertion about participation in the trade union activities and having thus invited the wrath of the proprietors of the concern, I must say, has convincing over-tones.
There is bare denial on the part of the mill management as regards Hashmi's claim of having been jobless throughout, no worthwhile evidence having been led by him in that behalf. Evidence adduced by the employer in rebuttal of the aforesaid assertion of the employee is however equally infirm. Statement made by Muhammad Ashraf, Factory Manager, as RW-1 in the lower Court, about Saleem Pervaiz Hashmi having been running a dispensary, in the name and style Hashrni Clinic', does not inspire confidence. A photograph of the clinic could be tendered or some convincing evidence in corroboration of the aforesaid testimony of factory manager could be led. The same is lacking; and the learned Labour Court, therefore, was well within its rights to assume that Saleem Pervaiz Hashmi had remained jobless during the disputed period.
7. Mr. Hashmi had, as already said, been turned out of service, once in the year 1986. He staged a come-back through machinery of law this Tribunal having accepted his appeal and ordered his reinstatement in service on 4-4-1989. This development must not have been relished by the mill people, who availed of another occasion to make Mr. Hashmi victim of a spiteful crackdown, for the second time. By all means, the insinuations directed against the mill management by the employee seem to be absolutely sound; and I have no reason to doubt the credentials of the employee and correctness of his averments. Since his services were terminated for no fault on his part, he was entitled to reinstatement in service, with full back benefits.
8. The judgment delivered by the learned lower Court is upheld in toto; and the appeal having no merit is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.