Inayat Ullah petitioner has filed the under-consideration petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, against the Manage--ment of Nemat Kadah Restaurant, Lohari Gate, Lahore seeking his reinstate--ment with back benefits. He has contended in his application that he was permanently employed in the respondent's restaurant as Bill Clerk and that he was an office-bearer of Nemat Kadah Restaurant Employees Union which was C. B. A. for the establishment of the respondent-Restaurant. As a measure to finish the Union the Management of the respondent-Restaurant illegally and wrongfully terminated the active members and office-bearers of the Union numbering 48 including the petitioner. In this manner, according to the petitioner his termination was illegal and wrongful.
The respondent-Restaurant vehemently resisted the petition and pleaded inter alia that the petitioner was working as supervisor and as such he was not a workman under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employ--ment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, and therefore, his' application was not maintainable.
3. On merits the respondent maintained that the petitioner's employ--ment was terminated on account of abolition of some posts in the exigency of business due to consistent losses to the respondent consecutively for 3 years after giving him one month's pay in lieu of notice as permitted by law. This was therefore a case of termination simpliciter.
4. Inayat Ullah petitioner has appeared as his own witness and also examined Muhammad Ghani, President of Nemat Kadah Restaurant Employees' Union. Inayat Ullah petitioner stated that he was employed as general duty clerk and that he was previously the executive member of Restaurant Employees' Union and at present he was the Propaganda Secretary of the said Union. He always actively participated in the Union activities and signed the agreement on behalf of the workers which were executed between the Union and the Management. He further stated that the Management persuaded him to leave the Union but he refused to do so. He was held out threats of termination by M/s. Salah Uddin the General Manager and Muhammad Mumtaz the Director. He has also stated that the duties which he used to perform now after his termination were being performed by Izhar Uddin who was very junior to the petitioner in service. He admitted that in the grievance notice he was shown as supervisor. He also admitted that in leave applications Exhs.
R.-3, R-4, R-5 and R-6 has designated himself as supervisor. He has also admitted that Agenda Exh.
R-7 dated 4th December, 1973, was issued and his signatures were at Exh-R-7/1. He admitted that he did not make any written complaint to the Police, Labour Department or to any Court that he was being held out threats by the Manager or Director. Muhammad Ghani produced agreements Exhs. P-2, P-3 and P-4. These agreements have been signed by the petitioner as representative of the workers. This witness has admitted that the Agenda Exh. R-7 was issued and consequent upon the said Agenda a meeting was held on 5February 1975. He has further admitted that Exh. R-8 was photo copy of the minutes of the meeting. He has stated that when Inayat Ullah petitioner was terminated 48 persons were terminated and on the, occasion of terminating those 48 persons the reason disclosed by the Management was that the respondent-Establishment was running into losses and therefore this retrench--ment was felt necessary.
5. In rebuttal Mir Salah Uddin, General Manager of the Restaurant has been testified. He has stated that Inayat Ullah petitioner was serving as Supervisor in the Restaurant when he was retrenched.
He has stated that Mir Izhar Uddin was employed as Bill Clerk and that Supervisor and Bill Clerk were two different posts. He stated that when petitioner was terminated, termination notice Exh. R- 10 was issued. According to Mir, Salah Uddin before effecting these retrenchments the establishment was running into losses continuously for 3 years. He as General Manager submitted the report Exh. R-II for the year ending 30June 1975. This witness has also produced photo copies of the income-tax assesment order Exh. R-12 and R-13 for the years 1973-74 and 1974-75. He has also produced Exh. R-14 balance-sheet for the year ending 30th June, 1975. According to those orders and balance-sheet the respondent's Restaurant has been suffering losses during the years 1973-74, 1974-75, and for the year ending 20th June, 1975. It transpires from the report Exh. R-II that the General Manager had proposed retrenchment to save the establishment from further running into losses. Mir Salah Uddin has stated that the petitioner had not been terminated on account of the fact that he was office-bearer of the Union. He has also stated that he and the managing partner Muhammad Mumtaz never held out any threat of termination to the petitioner and others.
From the contents of R-7 and R-8 it transpires that the Management held meetings with the workers to consider the situation of the business of the establishment and the circumstances arising out of the increased expenditure and inflation.
6. In the light of the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the parties as discussed above it transpires that the petitioner was appointed as a supervisor before his termination and he was not a bill clerk or a general duty clerk. Anyhow even as a supervisor he does not lose the status of being a workman under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and has therefore, the locus standi to file application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
7. It is however sufficiently established from the parties' evidence that the petitioner along with 47 other workmen of the respondent-Restaurant was retrenched to meet the situation arising out of losses which the respondent --Restaurant was suffering continuously for the last three years.
8. The pleas of the petitioner that he was held out threats of termina--tion on account of hi. Trade Union activities by the General Manager and the Director does not find mention in the grievance notice as well as in the application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.th th Otherwise this afterthought plea is not proved by the solitary statement of the petitioner, which has been effectively rebutted by the testimony of Mir Salah Uddin.
9. The petitioner has also raised an afterthought plea during the course of evidence that one Mir 1zharuddin who was junior to the petitioner was being retained and was assigned the same duties which used to be performed by the petitioner. This plea has not been raised in the grievance notice even in the application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Moreover this plea is otherwise also baseless inasmuch as according to the overwhelming evidence on the record, the petitioner was a supervisor at the time of his termination whereas Mir Izhar Uddin was serving the respondent as a bill clerk.
10. In the light of what has been said above it is concluded that it is a case of termination simpliciter on account of retrenchment in accordance with law. There is thus not illegality or wrongfulness with the termination of the petitioner. The under-consideration petition is accordingly dismissed.