' This is an appeal arising out of a decision dated 18-11-1997 passed by the learned Labour Court No,2, Karachi on Grievance Application bearing No,224 of 1994 for reinstatement with back benefits which was dismissed by the learned Labour Court.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance.
3. The first point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that although the respondent filed three balance sheets of their accounts for the years 1991, 1992 and 1993 alongwith the Auditors Report but they have failed to produce the Auditor Book. In reply learned counsel for the respondent submits that no exception was taken to the said Reports by the appellant. This reply seems to be incorrect in view of the cross-examination made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the documents attached with the reply statement are fabricated. The respondent thereupon made an application for summoning the Auditors but by consent it was agreed by both the parties that the last Report of the Auditors may be taken on record. In view of this admitted position the objection does not carry any weight. The consent order passed on 20th August, 1997 is reproduced as under:- "By consent of both counsel certified true copy of statement of Ahmed Abdul Azeem recorded in Case 12 of 1991 be exhibited in this case and this application stands disposed of."
4. In view of the above the objection has no force. The perusal of the last audited balance sheet for the year ending June, 1993 shows the loss of Rs,66,69,987 which compelled the company to make retrenchment. In fact due to tight position of stringency and reduced production of Refrigerators and Electric Water Cooler, they were compelled to make retrenchment of the staff on the basis of last come first go.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant taking another point submits that the respondent had retrenched the services of the appellant while a person junior to the appellant has been retained in service. The respondent while admitting that Samiullah is junior to the appellant submitted that the appellant was serving as Painter whereas Samiullah is Lapman and printer as also deposed by one Abdul Qadir on behalf of the respondent which is supported by the documentary evidence of the payment of Wages Register Exh.R/2.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent at the last leg of his argument submitted that the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 are not applicable to the facts of the case inasmuch as the number of employees at the time of retrenchment consisted of 30/35 workers whereas the minimum number in the factory is required 49 which was admitted by the appellant in his cross-examination. "It is correct that 25 to 30 workers had been working in the factory at the time (of his retrenchment).
Learned counsel for the appellant-however, submits that in cross-examination the respondent's Manager Abdul Qadir has admitted that the Standing Order was applicable to his factory but that answer is given in the context of the power of the retrenchment and not as to the number of employees.
7. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the learned Labour Court No, II at Karachi is upheld and consequently the appeal is dismissed.