DECISION ' The facts leading to this case briefly stated are as follows. The appellant Tajim Khan was employed as fitter/turner in the Workshop of M/s. Darbar Soap Works (Pvt.) Limited, the respondents ' in this case since 12-9-1990. He was removed from service on 28-10-1993 by oral order but somehow he was reinstated in service in consequence of the Court's order. According to the appellant's version, subsequent to his reinstatement he became member of the Darbar Soap Workers Union and was also elected as its General Secretary. His election caused annoyance to the respondents' Management which time and again issued to him unfounded charge-sheets. Having failed in such efforts, the respondents' Management ultimately got rid of him alongwith 7 other Workers on the false pretext of closing down the Workshop vide letter dated 28-2-1998. The said letter further shows that for the purpose of reorganization new workers had been engaged through Contractor. Though the other workers who were ousted from service alongwith appellant did not pursue the matter of their reinstatement nor they went to Court, yet the appellant did not remain silent. As a first step he sent grievance notice to the Management by Registered Post. The Management's reply to the said notice was quite unsatisfactory (vide reply dated 6-6-1998) and, therefore, the appellant filed grievance petition dated 13-7-1998 which was dismissed vide order, dated 24th December, 1998 of Third Sindh Labour Court Karachi.
2. In the reply statement filed on behalf of the respondents' Management, they denied the allegations made by the appellant. The stand taken by them was that applicant's services were terminated alongwith services of other persons on account of constant adverse remarks trend, general recession, lack of demands of their material and re-organization as a result thereof.
Nevertheless it was stated in their reply statement that service record of the appellant was not satisfactory inasmuch as that several warnang letters and charge-sheets were issued to him on basis of misconduct and not due to his trade union activities.
3. I have heard the arguments of Mr. Nishat Warsi, the learned counsel for the appellant, in support of the appellant's case and Mr. Rizwan Ahmed for the respondents. I have also perused the relevant documents available on record.
4. It appears that the only point which needs to be decided is whether the impugned order of termination of the appellant's services suffered from any illegality. Admittedly the said order was passed on the ground of closing down of the Workshop where the appellant was working. It is also an admitted fact that the appellant alone was not singled out for termination of his services as a result of the alleged closure of the Workshop but seven other workers also met the same fate i,e, their services like the appellant were also terminated. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that closing down of the Workshop was uncalled for because there was absolutely no justification for such action. In view of that argument it was to be examined how for such contention of the appellant had truth in it. If the closure of the Workshop had not been based on genuine grounds the respondents' establishment have started (sic) the other seven workers whose services were terminated alongwith services of the appellant too would have challenged the said closure by agitating the matter in Labour Court. But contrary to this they silently accepted their legal dues and had kept quiet. It was unbelievable that in order to get rid of the appellant the respondents/Management would sacrifice even the other workers by rendering them jobless for no fault of theirs. Moreover, the appellant's own admission in course of cross-examination that instead of previous three shifts now only one shift was working clearly showed that there had been significant reducing in work load and hence services of some workers found in excess were dispensed with. His further admission is to the effect:-- "It is incorrect that I have falsely stated that the bringing of two shifts instead of three was because of less production. It is correct that at present from October, 1998 only one shift is working."
' This admission on the part of appellant was self-explanatory and needed no further clarification. It was also not denied by the appellant that the work which was previously done in the Workshop, had now been entrusted to a contractor. The appellant's allegation was that two of the workers including Dawood whose services were terminated alongwith his services were reemployed. It may be so. According to the respondents/Management, even the name of appellant was recommended by them to the Contractor for reemployment. If he was not re-employed the reasons was not far to seek. It would appear from the grievance petition as well as the reply statement that the service career of the appellant was not satisfactory inasmuch as that from time to time he was issued warning after warning. Not only this but it was appellant's own admission that his trade union activities were somehow not liked by the respondents Management and they were the cause of their annoyance. It was also an admitted fact that before the impugned order of termination his services were terminated once before. Thus, the appellant's past record might have been the reason of the Contractor's hesitation to reemploy him.
' For above reasons the impugned order terminating the services of the appellant does not suffer from any defect or illegality. Consequently while upholding the said order, the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed.