DECISION ' This Judgment will dispose of 38 Appeals preferred by the appellants Messrs Mohammad! Textile Mills Ltd., Hyderabad, against 38 of their employees mentioned at SI. Nos. 1 to 38 in the impugned Order of the Court below. The respondent Abdul Hameed son of Noor Mohammad, mentioned at Sh. No, 39 had composed his differences with the appellants, hence, the appeal against him has already Been dismissed as having been withdrawn. From the 38 respondents, those shown at SI.
Nos. 1 to 21 were working in the Weaving Department; those at SI. Nos. 22 to 24 were Jobbers in the Spinning Department while the rest were working in different categories in the Spinning Department.
2. The facts giving rise to these Appeals are that Messrs Mohammadi, Textile Mills Ltd. Is a Private Limited Company engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn and cloth at Kali Road, S. I. T. E , Hyderabad. It has many separate independent Departments such as Weaving, Spinning and Workshop etc. The appellants had from time to time entered into Agreements/Settlements with the Collective Bargaining Agent of the Establishment and one of these Settlements was entered into on 13-5 1977 with a view to improve the production of this Mill. Under this Settlement, it was agreed between the parties that the workers would be entitled to Bonus at the rate equivalent to 42 days' wages on condition that the minimum target of 20,000 yards of cloth per day and 12,500 pounds of Spinning Yarn will be produced per day within 10 days of the execution of this Settlement and that this level of production would be kept up for 2 months for entitlement to any bonus. However, this target was never reached 1 the production in the Mill went down considerably and the last straw was the Bank squeeze restricting the credit facilities and thereby causing a financial crisis in the Mill necessitating the closing down of the Weaving Department on 11-6-1977. The workers were, therefore, served notices of retrenchment, accepted by most of them who also willingly collected their dues. To further economise expenses it became necessary for the. Management of the Mill to reorganize the Spinning Department and, therefore, on 7-7-1977, they abolished the category of Jobbers and Jobber Helpers, most of them having settled their accounts with the Company. In early July, 1977, the Martial Law Authorities visited the Mill to make on the spot enquiry as to the state of production and operation of the Mill. A meeting was held on 21-7-1977, between the Management and the Union which was also attended by Lt. Col. Raja Abdullah on behalf of the Martial Law Authorities, Mr. H. Haroon, the then S. D. M. City, Hyderabad and Mr. Lhsanullah Qureshl, Deputy Director (Labour), Hyderabad. A settlement was reached whereby it was agreed that the remaining workers of the Spinning Department would submit their raignations and would receive their legal dues including Gratuity, current wages and one month's notice pay as ex grades payment. This Settlement was accepted by the vast majority of the workers numbering in all 1000 or above except for the 38 respondents, who After adopting the usual grievance procedure, brought individual applications under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1959, before the VIth Sind Labour Court, Hyderabad, which Court allowed these applications and directed the Mill to re-instate all of them with all back benefits. This, the Court below did through one compendious Order lumping together, the Weavers, the Jobbers and Jobber Helpers and the workers in the Spinning Department. The present 38 Appeals are directed against this compendious Order.
3. I have heard Dr. Mohammad Safi Yousufzai, Advocate, on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Rafiq Ahmed, Advocate, on behalf of the respondents. I have also perused the record of those cases as received in this Tribunal from the Court below.
4. At the very outset, I must express my disapproval of the proceduce adopted in these matters by the Presiding Officer, Sind Labour Court No, Vi in lumping together the oases of all the 38 or 39 applicants and in disposing of them through one omnibus order instead of considering each case separately and on its own merits. It was contended by Dr. Yousufzai that thereby prejudice has been caused to his clients, the appellants, and this contention, in my opinion, is not without force. It has also been stressed on behalf of the appellants that their Mill was doing badly and was in financial difficulties being unable to meet their obligations. To enable them to keep their heads above water in the first instance, they decided on 11-6-1977 to close down the Weaving Department and the notices of retrenchment served by them upon these Weavers clearly mentioned that owing to their present financial difficulties, it has been decided to close down the Weaving Department and to retrench all categories of staff and workered employed therein. Therefore notices were served on these workers terminating their services under Standing Orders 12 and 13 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, with one month's pay in lieu of notice. Then after a few weeks of the closing down of this Weaving Department, the Management felt it necessary to economise further and towards that end, it was decided to reorganise the Spinning Department abolishing the category of Jobbers and Helper Jobbers. This was also done through the medium of notices served on these workers abolishing that category in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 13. After the introduction of Martial Law on 5-7-1977, the Martial Law Authorities visited this Mill and it seems to me that this must have been done to ensure that there would be no trouble or disturbance on account of the situation then obtaining in the country. A meeting was held on 21-7-1977, already mentioned in para. 2 above, and the Settlement arrived at on that occasion refers to the long drawn out dispute between the Labourers and the Management of Mohammad) Textile Mills Ltd., and adds that "neither the Labour is interested in working in the Mill nor the Management is satisfied with the production given by the workers." This Agreement/Settlement also mentions that all the workers of the Spinning Department will resign receiving their legal dues and one month's notice pay. This Settlement is signed on behalf of the Management by the Manager and Chief Accountant of the Mill ; on behalf of the Union by its President, Vice-President and the General Secretary and also by the Sub Martial Law Administrator, the S. D. M. City, Hyderabad and the Deputy Director (Labour, Hyderabad). This settlement has been acted upon and implemented by the vast majority of workers of this Mill numbering over 1000 with the only exception of the present 38 respondents. In this connection, Dr. Yousufzai has invited my attention to cases reported in 1972 PLC 125, 1976 PLC 577 and 1977 PLC 693 wherein it has been held that terminated workmen arriving at a Settlement with the Employer and receiving agreed monetary B benefits as compensation qua termination cannot be permitted to resile from the Settlement after its implementation.
5. Now, this Settlement of 21-7-1977, has been attacked in the first instance on the ground that the closure of the Mill has been effected without observing the requirements of Standing Order 11 (a). It has been argued on behalf of the respondents that no prior permission of the Labour Court in this behalf has been taken and this omission vitiates the entire Settlement. This contention has been countered by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants by inviting my attention to a case reported in 1975 SCMR 49 where our Supreme Court has held that "Standing Order 11(a) does not spell out any sequence of various steps to be taken in closure of an Establishment and that an application to a Labour Court to close down could well be taken as a last step in the process." The Lower Court in its impugned Order while referring to this very Standing Order 11 (a) has said that its provisions are mandatory in nature ; but it seems to me that the Lower Court did not take account of the conditions then obtaining in the country and how the Martial Law Authorities soon after the 5th of July 1977, were doing their best to obviate any explosive situation.
The lower Court has next attacked this Settlement as being in violation of the provisions of section 4 of the West Pakistan Ordinance No, VI of 1968 known as West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. It has been held that this Settlement of 21-7-1977, violates the right of service of the workers of the Mill and as such is a Settlement which has not been beneficial to them. The answer to this objection is that any worker or any employee cannot have a right of perpetual service so as to entitle him to work in that Establishment for all eternity. It is important to observe that the proviso of section 4 also mentions that the right of benefit available to C the worker shall be under the provisions of the Schedule and it is this Schedule of Standing Orders which contains provisions for retrenchment or termination of service of workers In an Establishment.
6. The lower Court in this omnibus impugned Order has criticised and attacked this Settlement of 21-7-1977 as not being a Settlement within the meaning of section 2 WO of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, inasmuch as a copy thereof has not been sent to the Provincial Government, the Conciliator and such other persons as may be prescribed. Now, it is apparent from what has been stated above, that this Settlement between the Management and the Union of 21-7-1977, was arrived at in the presence of Mr. Ihsanullah Qureshi, the then Deputy Director, Labour, Hyderabad, and as such a superior Officer of the Conciliator at Hyderabad. It is contended by Mr. Yousufzai that a copy of this Settlement was submitted to the Provincial Government as required by Law and he goes on to point out that in his fairly long cross-examination, no question was put to Mr. Qureshi to indicate that this provision of Law was not complied with or to show that he (Mr. Qureshi) did not possess the powers of a Conciliator. On the contrary, in his cross examination, Mr. Qureshi has indicated that the Labour Directorate was satisfied with the course of the conduct taken by the Management of the Mill in this matter of closing down the Mill and he has added that labour Directorate did not file any complaint under section 46-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinate, 1969, before this Court at any time." Finally, the Court below has attacked Ibis Settlement as being against the provisions of section 23 of the Contract Act, inasmuch as it defeats the provisions of section 4 and Standing Order 11 (a) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. But, as pointed out in the preceding paragraphs, in my opinion, the provisions of section 4 and Standing Order 11 (a) have not been D violated and so this final argument of the Court below is an instance of "Begging the Question."
7. 1 cannot conclude this judgment without referring to a case very much on all fours with the instant case being the case of the Workers Union v. Messrs India Flour Mills (1936) Ltd, Karachi. In that case, too, the Mill was closed down under an Agreement between the Management and the workers signed before the Martial Law Authorities. No Conciliator was present at the time of execution of this Agreement ; nor was any signature of any Conciliator obtained. Nor was a copy thereof sent to the Labour Department. In these circumstances, it was contended that this so- called Agreement in this reported case dated 13-7-1969, cannot be said to be a Settlement within the meaning of the definition of the term 'Settlement' given in the Ordinance. However, my learned predecessor Mr. Justice Inamullah Khan in his judgment held that "it is true that the Agreement dated 15-7.1969, cannot be said to be a Settlement for the purposes of the provisions of the Ordinance. The fact, however, remains that an Agreement was arrived at before the Martial Law Authorities which was singed by Lt.-Col. A. Ghani, Sub-Administrator, Martial Law Authorities, Mr. Usman who claims to be the General Secretary of the Union and Mr. W. F. Tawawallo on behalf of Messrs India Flour Mills (1936) Ltd." This agreement was acted upon and the workers received their pay as provided therein and in the end, this Agreement was upheld H both by the Labour Court as well as by the Appellate Tribunal.
8. In the result, then after listening to the lengthy arguments of the learned Advocates extending over 3 sittings on 3 successive days and perusing the record of the Court below, I reached the conclusion that these 38 Appeals should be allowed and there and the; announced a short order in Court to that effect. This judgment contains the reasons for that order. 1976 PLC 577