' The appeal is directed against the decision dated 15-8-1994, rendered by the learned Labour Court, Faisalabad, accepting Tanvir Ali's grievance petition, submitted under section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and ordering his reinstatement in service, with all the back benefits.
2. Tanvir Ali was employed as a worker by the management of the Madni Ghee Mills, Faisalabad, on 1-7-1993, and his services were terminated on 23-6-1994. The employment, according to Tanvir Ali, was of permanent character, although the appellant has termed it as temporary, and has further taken up the plea that Tanvir Ali's services had to be dispensed with, owing to re-organization of the concern. The owners had another concern, named, Punjab Oil Mills or Punjab Oil Products, Sargodha Road, Faisalabad, which had to be closed down, on account of financial constraints. Four employees of the said concern were absorbed in the Madni Ghee Mills, and Tanvir Ali, being the junior-most, became surplus, and had to be shunted out.
3. Appointment order of Tanvir Ali is Exh.P-1, which indicates that he had been employed on permanent basis. It is so conceded even by a witness of the concern, Mr. Muhammad Tahir, Chief Executive, R.W.1. A Permanent worker, as is so well known, cannot be ousted from service,. Without observance of the requisite legal formalities, namely, service of show-cause notice/charge-sheet and initiation of a domestic inquiry. In so far as the question of closure of the concern goes, Labour Court's permission has necessarily to be obtained for the purpose, as ordained by Standing Order 11-A, West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, and there is a provision that employment of more than 50% of the workmen shall not be terminated.
There are, of course, certain exceptions, as for instance, catastrophe, stoppage of power supply, epidemics, civil commotion, or catching of fire. Standing Order 12, ibid stipulates that one month's notice has to be given by the employer to a permanent workman if his service is proposed to be brought an end to, for any reason other than misconduct. A temporary, work-charged, daily-rated workman or a probationer shall, of course, not be entitled to any such notice. An order, in writing, stating explicitly the reasons, has to be rendered for terminating the services of a permanent workman, if such incidence takes place in consequence of retrenchment of the employees of the concern. Procedure for retrenchment and re-employment of retrenched workmen has been given in Standing Orders 13 and 14 and punishments are provided in Standing Order 15, West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. It is, thus, clear that a procedure has to be followed and Labour Court has to be approached for closure of a concern, which event cannot take place otherwise than in accordance with law.
4. The same person and the same partnership may own more than one concerns. Closure of one should not be permitted to have impact on the sister concern or the other enterprise, employees of which, it appears, cannot be retrenched on the pretext of re-organization. In the instant case, as is maintained by the management, senior-most employees of the Punjab Oil Products were accommodated within the fold of the Madni Ghee Mills, and this entailed dispensation of services for Tanvir Ali, who happened to be the junior-most person. I do not subscribe to the view expressed by the learned counsel for the appellant that it was for the worker to establish that he was not the junior-most person. The record of the employees is always with the concern, and obviously it becomes easier for the management to place before the Court such record. It is maintained by the employee that one Razzaq Ashraf had been employed along with him, but is still working. Another person, Arshad by name, is said to have been employed subsequently; and thus the contention of the appellant concern that Tanvir Ali happened to be the junior-most workman seems not to have conclusively been established.
5. An application was submitted by the appellant, on 15-10-1996, with the request that permission be granted for producing additional evidence. It was stoutly resisted by the employee, whose learned counsel submitted reply on 20-11-1996. According to the latter, it was a vexatious, mischievous and calculated device adopted by the appellant to delay the disposal of the appeal and the appellant must not be allowed to fill up the lacunae the evidence by resorting to this experiment, namely, production of additional evidence. Punjab Oil Mills is said to have temporarily been closed, and its new site could be closed to or parallel with the Madni Ghee Mills. The old structure has, of course, been disma ntled, but the concern is not going to be closed for ever. In these circumstances of the case, it appears, it will advance the ends of justice, if the prayer of the appellant concern for leading certain evidence in addition to the one already on record is granted, so that the aforesaid circumstances can be explained in an objective manner, and the question of Tanvir Ali being the junior-most workman is also settled in a satisfactory manner and proved to a degree of certainty. He vehemently maintains that he is not the junior-most workman and persons junior to him have even been retained in service.
6. I would, as such, allow the application aforesaid, and remand the case for decision to the learned Labour Court. As the appellant concern has taken up the plea that there is no room at all to accommodate Tanvir Ali, within the fold of the Madni Ghee Mills, for the present, he may not immediately be taken back in service or paid the back benefits, but the result of the grievance petition filed by Tanvir Ali, under section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, shall depend on re-appraisal of the evidence of the parties and re-examination of the legal issues involved. The impugned decision is set aside and the appeal is allowed, in the aforesaid terms. As the employee takes up the plea that he has been jobless over a good length of period, a genuine effort shall be made to re-decide the case finally within the shortest possible time. The parties shall appear for further proceedings before. The Labour Court on 23-7-1997.