Decision . The appellants were working as weavers in the respondent-Mills. Prior to this incident they were dismissed from service for misconduct but they were reinstated by the Labour Court. Finally after reinstatement on 22-4-1991 a written order was issued by the Mills to the appellants that their section of the mills in which they were employed had been given aver to the contractor, Their services had, therefore, become surplus and they were terminated with immediate effect. They would get one month's wages in lieu of notice. It was, however, left to them to approach the contractor for employment if they so desired.
2. The above appellants accordingly filed grievance notices followed by grievance petition under section 25-A of the I.R.O. The learned Labour Court found no merit in both the petitioners which were accordingly dismissed. Against this order of their dismissal the appellants have preferred this appeal.
3. The order of termination described above has obviously been passed under Order 12 of the Standing Orders Ordinance. Under this order the services of a workman can be terminated after cane month's notice or one month's wages in lieu of 'notice. The other requirement is that the P termination should be by an order in writing explicitly stating the reason for the action taken. In this case all these requirements have been duly complied with.
4. Mr. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi has argued that the reasons given were false and there was no contractor. However, he cannot show from evidence, the truth of this contention. Mr. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi again emphasises his argument by stating that the contractor was appointed several years before termination and not at the the of termination. These workers were reinstated in January, 1991 under the orders of the Court and they were terminated because the section in which they were employed had been taken over by the contractor.
5. I find no substance in these appeals which are accordingly dismissed in limine.