' On 17th December 1975, respondent pasted a notice on the notice board of the Mills and it was to the effect that as the machinery in the Wall Top Section & Worsted Section was second band machinery, it has become Irreparable and on this machinery production has become uneconomical and its products are substandard, therefore, service of the employees of these two sections are terminated with one month wages. Termination letters were also issued to the individuals which were not accepted by the employees except 3 of them. 95 employees were to be affected by closing down these two sections, so employees made a protest through their Union which is alleged by the petitioner-Union to be a C. B. A. Union. On their protest and through the intervention of the Labour Authorities at Rawalpindi as well as the District Administration employer agreed to withdraw this notice on 21st December 1975 and on 21st December 1975, another notice was pasted on the notice board. According to the Management a copy of that notice is Exh. P. B. On the file and it is to the effect that through the intervention of the District Administration and Labour Department it has been decided to give duty to the employees for another month but according to the Union copy of that notice is Exh. P. F. And it is to the effect that workers are taken on duty with the intervention of the District Administration and Labour Department. Remaining matters would be decided in a meeting. Management issued a lever to the General Secretary of the Union on 30th December 1975. Photostate copy of which is Exh. P. B. By which time was fixed for decision on the remaining matters. General Secretary of the Union refused to attend that meeting on the ground that Union is not at all ready to have talks with the Management on matter of retrenchment of any of the employees. This meeting was to be held on 30th December 1975, so Union filed a petition under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, which is to the effect that it has become a right guaranteed by amendment in Standing Order No, 11-A of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 (hereinafter called Ordinance), which is to the effect that no employer can close the establishment even partially affecting the half of the workers. An ad interim injuction was also prayed which was granted and it was confirmed after hearing the respondent on 21st January 1976, so the workers which were to be affected by retrenchment are still employed. Both the parties lead evidence their arguments were heard on 3rd February 1976 at Lahore.
2. This is the admitted position of the parties that if retrenchment is made than 95 workers are affected. Again this is the admitted position of the parties that there are 210 workers in Rabat Woollen Mills, at Rawalpindi. Again this is the admitted position of the parties that there is an Industrial Establishment and attached to it is a Commercial Establishment. Strength of workers in the Industrial Establishment is 176 whereas in the Commercial Establishment strength of workers is 34.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended in the first place that notice for retrenchment was pasted by the Manager and it is Exh. P. B. On the file. It was pasted by the Manager, in his capacity as Manager whereas he had no authority of hire and fire. This fact has been admitted by the Managing Director in his cross-examination, so it was not legal an valid notice of retrenchment.
In the second place he has contended that even if it is considered to be a valid notice then it was withdrawn by the Management on 21st December 197i. Again if Bah. P. B. Be taken as a notice by the employer 95 employees intended to be retrenched were the employees of the respondent till dated 21st January 1976, and amendment in Standing Order No, 11-A in the Ordinance of 1968, was made affective on 23rd December 1975, and Management through this amendment was obliged to get prior permission of a Labour Court before making retrenchment of more than half the employees which they have not done and this is guaranteed right of the Union that if retrenchment of more than half the employees is to be made the Management should get permission from the Labour Court. It cannot serve the termination notice or paste it on the notice board as is alleged to have been done through Exh. P. B.
4. In the third place it is contended by the learned counsel of the petitioner that Rahat Woollen Mills is being run by a Limited Company. By their memorandum and articles of Association, this Limited Company has been enabled to run different projects of manufacture and commercial undertaking.
At the present it is running Rahat Woollen Mills, which has two establishments one is a Commercial Establishment, no doubt for the time being attached to the Industrial Establishment, retrenchment is being made only in the Industrial Establishment, where the total number of employees is 176 retrenchment is being made in two sections of this Industrial Establishment and the number of employees which are being retrenched is 95, it is more than half the total number of employees in the Industrial Establishment. Correspondingly no employee is being retrenched from the Commercial Establishment.
5. On the other band learned counsel for the respondent has contended that this petition is premature. Cause of action of the petitioner-Union could arise to the Union only after retrenchment. Violation of Standing Order No, 11-A of the Ordinance, 1969, could give the Union a cause of action. Employees which are alleged to be intended for retrenchment are still the employees of the respondent and employer might have withdrawn his notice of termination pasted on the notice board on 23rd December 1975, and a meeting of 30th December 1975, was fixed for this purpose.
6. In the second place learned counsel for the respondent has contended that Rahat Woollen Mills is one establishment. Commercial Establishment of Rabat Woollen Mills is only because of Industrial Establishment and it includes Clerical Staff, Security Staff etc. For Rahat Woollen Mills, therefore, Commercial Establishment cannot be excluded while counting the number of workmen in Rahat Woollen Mills, and if they are included then total number of workmen in Rahat Woollen Mills including its Manager who has no power of hire and fire becomes 210. Number of employees which would be affected if the two sections are closed is 95 and it is much less than the one-half of the total establishment, and in that case no permission is required for making retrenchment.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent has blown hot and cold in the same breath. On one hand, he has contended that employer might have withdrawn notice of termination in view of the new amendment and on the other hand he has contended that number of employees which would be affected by retrenchment is much less than a half and therefore employer had every right to retrench them without prior permission of this Court. Cause of action arose to the petitioner-Union by termination notices, by which it has been made abundantly clear that the retrenches would no more remain employees of the respondent after one month. After retrerchment Union would have no way to fight for 95 employees collectively. It would be inclividuals only who could agitate their grievance of retrenchment through. Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
8. Rabat Woollen Mills is a Limited Company and there are two different Establishments. Two sections of Industrial Establishment are mina closed. It is very pertinent to note that no retrenchment is being made correspondingly in the Commercial Establishment. If Commercial Establishment is only for the sale of Industrial Establishment then nature by a corresponding retrenchment from the Commercial Establishment such as Clercial Labour 'Ind Security Staff should have been made rateably. Employer has not done it perhaps for the reason that some other commercial undertaking would be under proposal after closure of two sections, so it is quite clear that there are two different Establishments and retrenchment is being made only in Industrial Establishment, and while counting one-half of the employees of Industrial Establishment are to be counted. Employees of two sections of the Industrial Establishment are more than half of the total number of employees of the Industrial Establishment.
9. In that view of the matter I find that respondent cannot make retrenchment of more than one- half employees of the Industrial Establishment of Rahat Woollen Mills, without prior permission of the Labour Court.