1. ' In order to encourage small industries in the far-flung/backwards areas of the Province and also to provide employment to the deserving persons, the Small Industrial Development Board established numerous Projects in the Province of North West Frontier including Wood Working Centre Karak, Pak, German Wood Working Centre, Peshawar and so on. The Wood Working Centre, Karak (hereinafter referred to as Centre/Project) started functioning way back in the year, 1989 when dozens of skilled and semi-skilled persons were employed in the Centre. However, as alleged, the Centre after functioning more than a decade has gone into losses which constrained the.
2. Board of Directors of the SIDB to dispense with the service of as many as 45 employees/workers of the Centre under the garb of restructuring of the Centre in accordance with terms and conditions of their appointment letters which in the opinion of the Board was one month salary in lieu of the notice period and nothing else vide order dated 26-7-2001.
2. This action on the part of the SIDB obliged the said employees/workers numbering 30 to serve grievance notices on 6-8-2001 upon the management (as alleged). On receiving no reply from the high-ups of the establishment, all of them filed their separate grievance petitions before the Labour Court on 6-9-2001 wherein they challenged their termination and prayed for their- instatement in service with all back-benefits. Since the prayer/stance taken by all the petitioners in' the grievance petitions was the same, therefore, with the consent of the parties, all the cases were consolidated by the learned Labour Court and it was decided that the proceedings/evidence would be recorded in one of the cases titled Muhammad Aslam v. SIDB.
3. The SIDE resisted the grievance petitions by submitting written reply wherein the Board took the stance that the petitioners were not workers as enunciated in the relevant provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance and as such they cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court.
3. The learned Labour Court initiated the proceedings with the examination of (P.W.-1) Lal Sherin, Ex- Chowkidar of the Establishment who in his statement stated that he was appointed as Chowkidar on 4-2-1982 in the Establishment and served for about 20 years and on his termination of service on 29-9-2001, he was given Golden Hand Shake. In the cross-examination, he stated that earlier he was appointed as Chowkidar in the Carpet Centre, SIDB, Kohat and after serving for about 8 years; he was transferred to Wood Working Centre Karak as he originally hailed from that area. The second witness of the petitioners was Mira Dad (P.W.-2) who was also attorney for rest of the petitioners. This witness has stated that he was inducted into service as 'Mechanic' on 23-6-1990. In the cross-examination, he stated that after the termination of the petitioners. 5/6 workers were employed in the said Project on daily wages basis. He further went on to say that similar to the petitioners, the employees of the Pak, German Wood Working Centre, Peshawar and some of the staff of Headquarter were terminated but they were paid Golden Hand Shake which was duly approved by the Government. However, contrarily, no Golden Hand Shake has been paid to the petitioners. 'He also admitted in his cross-examination that some of the Machines installed in the Wood Working Centre, Karak, if not to put to work for some times, the same will turn into scrap. With the deposition of these two witnesses, the evidence of the petitioners was closed. Whereafter, respondents/Establishment produced Muhammad Rafiq, Project Manager; Wood Working Centre Karak as P.W.-1. According to him, at the time of termination of the services of the petitioners, 50 employees were working out of which 45 workers were sacked due to financial losses. In his statement, he admitted the factum of engagement of 5/6 employees on daily wage basis to look after machinery. In his statement, he also disclosed that most of the Projects established in the Province, due to financial implications, have already been closed. However, to keep the equipment/machinery in working order, some of the employees/workers have been working in that Centre on daily wage basis. He also admitted in his statement that the employees of Pak. German Wood Working Centre Peshawar as well as the staff of the Headquarter SIDB whose services were terminated, have already been paid Golden Hand Shake as the same was sanctioned by the Provincial Government but none of the employees of this Project (Wood Working Centre, Karak) has been paid Golden Hand Shake. According to him, the employees of the Project had no concern with the employees of the Headquarter office as the staff of the Project is employed by the Project Manager (Technical). In his statement, he further clarified that P.W. -1 Lal Sherin was initially appointed as Chowkidar by the Headquarter vide appointment order Exh. RW 1/2 who was later on transferred to Kohat and then Karak but he stood on the strength of Headquarter and as such given Golden Hand Shake (being appointee of Hadquarter). This witness also produced Exh. RW 1/8 and Exh. R.W. 1/9 in respect of sanction of Golden Hand Shake to the employees of the Pak. German Wood Working Centre Peshawar and employees of Headquarter. He also produced appointment letter of Muhammad Aslam as Exh. RW 1/12 and also his confirmation letter as Exh.RW 1/13. After deposition of RW-1 Muhammad Rafiq, due to other professional engagements of the learned counsel for the parties, written arguments from both the sides were asked for, which were duly furnished. And the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court after going through the evidence and written arguments furnished by the learned counsel for the parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioners were permanent employees of the Centre/Project, serving for more than 18 years (ranging from 4 years to 18 years) and termed the retrenchment as based on mala fide as no terminal benefit i,e, Golden Hand Shake has been given to the petitioners as allowed to the staff of Headquarter as well as Pak. German Wood Working Centre Peshawar which treatment of the Board was considered to be discriminatory and not sustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, he held the petitioner entitled for the payment of all dues, pay etc, as paid to other employees of the Headquarter and Pak., German Wood Working Centre, Peshawar. However, the petitioners' prayer for their reinstatement was turned down especially in view of application submitted by the petitioners on 28-5-2002 requesting for payment of service dues which in the opinion of the learned Labour Court amounted to acquiescence on their part with regard to their reinstatement, vide judgment and order dated 10-9-2002.
4. Feeling aggrieved, both the parties i,e, SIDB and the petitioners have come to this Court by filing as many as 30 appeals by each side wherein the Board/Establishment has challenged the order with regard to the payments of dues i,e, Golden Hand Shake as given to other employees of Pak.
4. German Wood Working Centre, Peshawar while the sacked employees have challenged the order for not accepting their prayer regarding their reinstatement. Since all the appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment dated 10-9-2002 wherein common points of law and facts are involved, therefore, I am going to dispose of all the appeals, enumerated below, by a single judgment recorded in Labour Appeal No,71 of 2002 (Muhammad Aslam v. The Deputy Managing Director, N.-W.F.P. S1DB, Peshawar etc.):-- (1). Labour Appeal No,72 of 2002 (The Deputy Managing Director, N.-W.F.P. SIDB, Peshawar and others v. Muhammad Aslam).
5. (2). Labour Appeal No,73 of 2002 (The Deputy Managing Director, N.-W.F.P. SIDB, Peshawar and others v. Mir Shah Ali).
6. (3). Labour Appeal No,74 of 2002 (The Deputy Managing Director, N.-W.F.P. SIDB, Peshawar and others v. Mira Dad Khan).
7. (4). Labour Appeal No,75 of 2002 (The Deputy Managing Director, N.-W.F.P. SIDB, Peshawar and others v. Abdul Aziz Khan).
8. (5). Labour Appeal No,76 of 2002 (The Deputy Managing Director, SIDB, Peshawar and others v.
9. Tariq Javed).
10. (6). Labour Appeal No,77 of 2002 (The Deputy Managing Director, N.-W.F.P. SIDB, Peshawar and others v. Zareen Gul).
11. (7). Labour Appeal No,78 of 2002 (The Deputy Managing Director, N.-W.F.P. SIDB, Peshawar and others v. Shafiullah Khan).
12. (8). Labour Appeal No,79 of 2002 (The Deputy Managing Director, N.-W.F.P. SIDB, Peshawar and others v. Suratur Rehman).
13. (9). Labour Appeal No,80 of 2002 (The Deputy Managing Director, N.-W.F.P. SIDB, Peshawar and others v. Mir Aslam Khan).
14. (10). Labour Appeal No,81 of 2002 (The Deputy Managing Director, N.-W.F.P. SIDB, Peshawar and others v. Sard Ali Khan).
15. (11).Labour Appeal No,82 of 2002 (The Deputy Managing Director, N.-W.F.P. SIDB, Peshawar and others v. Matiullah).
16. (12).Labour Appeal No,83 of 2002 (The Deputy Managing Director, N.-W.F.P. SIDB, Peshawar and others v. Azizur Rehman).
17. (13).Labour Appeal No,84 of 2002 (The Deputy Managing Director, N.-W.F.P. SIDB, Peshawar and others v. Mumtaz Khan).
18. (14).Labour Appeal No,85 of 2002 (The Deputy Managing Director, N.-W.F.P. SIDB, Peshawar and others v. Samin Khan).
19. (15).Labour Appeal No,86 of 2002 (The Deputy Managing Director, N.-W.F.P. SIDB, Peshawar and others v. Noor Hameed).
20. (r6).Labour Appeal No,87 of 2002 (The Deputy Managing Director, N.-W.F.P. SIDB, Peshawar and others v. Umar Jan).
21. (17).Labour Appeal No,88 of 2002 (The Deputy Managing Director, N.-W.F.P. SIDB, Peshawar and others v. Shafaqat Ali Shah).
22. (18).Labour Appeal No,89 of 2002 (The Deputy Managing Director, N.-W.F.P. SIDB, Peshawar and others v. Fazal Ghani).
23. (19).Labour Appeal No,90 of 2002 (The Deputy Managing Director, N.-W.F.P. SIDB, Peshawar and others v. Hafeezullah).
24. (20).Labour Appeal No,91 of 2002 (The Deputy Managing Director, N.-W.F.P. SIDB, Peshawar and others v. Khan Wali).
25. (21).Labour Appeal No,92 of 2002 (The Deputy Managing Director, N.-W.F.P. SIDB, Peshawar and others v. Sadiqur Rehman).
26. (22).Labour Appeal No,93 of 2002 (The Deputy Managing Director, N.-W.F.P. SIDB, Peshawar and others v. Muhammad Anwar).
27. (23).Labour Appeal No,94 of 2002 (The Deputy Managing Director, N.-W.F.P. SIDB, Peshawar and others v. Masiur Rehman).
28. (24).Labour Appeal No,95 of 2002 (The Deputy Managing Director, N.-W.F.P. SIDB, Peshawar and others v. Saeed Shah).
29. (25).Labour Appeal No,96 of 2002 (The Deputy Managing Director, N.-W.F.P. SIDB, Peshawar and others v. Hazrat Ali).
30. (26).Labour Appeal No,97 of 2002 (The Deputy Managing Director, SIDB, Peshawar and others v. Gul Said Khan).
31. (27).Labour Appeal No,98 of 2002 (The Deputy Managing Director, N.-W.F.P. SIDB, Peshawar and others v. Umar Khitab).
32. (28).Labour Appeal No,99 of 2002 (The Deputy Managing Director, N.-W.F.P. SIDB, Peshawar and others v. Abdul Zaman).
33. (29).Labour Appeal No,100 of 2002 (The Deputy Managing Director, N.-W.F.P. SIDB, Peshawar and others. v. Sher Daraz Khan).
34. (30).Labour Appeal No,101 of 2002 (The Deputy Managing Director, N.-W.F.P. SIDB, Peshawar and others v. Nasir Jan).
35. (31).Labour Appeal No,103 of 2002 (Mir Shah Ali v. The Deputy Managing Director, N.-W.F.P., SIDB, Peshawar and others).
36. (32). Labour Appeal No,104 of 2002 (Mir Dad Khan v. The Deputy Managing Director, N.-W.F.P., SIDB., Peshawar and others).
37. (33). Labour Appeal No, 105 of 2002 (Abdul Aziz v. The Deputy Managing Director, N.-W.F.P., SIDB, Peshawar and others).
38. (34).Labour Appeal No,106 of 2002 (Tariq Javed v. The Deputy Managing Director, N.-W.F.P. SIDB, Peshawar and others), (35).Labour Appeal No,107 of 2002 (Zareen Gul v. The Deputy Managing Director, N.-W.F.P. SIDB, Peshawar and others).
39. (36).Labour Appeal No,108 of 2002 (Shafiullah v. The Deputy Managing Director, N.-W.F.P. SIDB, Peshawar and others)
40. (37).Labour Appeal No,109 of 2002 (Suratur Rehman v. The Deputy Managing Director, N.-W.F.P. SIDB, Peshawar and others)
41. (38). Labour Appeal No,110 of 2002 (Mir Aslam Khan v. The Deputy Managing Director, N.-W.F.P. SIDB, Peshawar and others).
42. (39).Labour Appeal No, 111 of 2002 (Sard Ali Khan v. The Deputy Managing Director, N.-W.F.P. SIDB, Peshawar and others).
43. (40).Labour Appeal No,112 of 2002 (Matiullah v. The 'Deputy Managing Director, N.-W.F.P. SIDB, Peshawar and others).
44. (41).Labour Appeal No,113 of 2002 (Azizur Rehman v. The Deputy Managing Director, N.-W.F.P. SIDB, Peshawar and others).
45. (42). Labour Appeal No,114 of 2002 (Mumtaz Khan v. The Deputy Managing Director, N.-W.F.P. SIDB, Peshawar and others).
46. (43).Labour Appeal No,115 of 2002 (Samin Khan v. The Deputy Managing Director, N.-W.F.P. SIDB, Peshawar and others)
47. (44). Labour Appeal No,116 of 2002 (Noor Hameed v. The Deputy Managing Director, N.-W.F.P. SIDB, Peshawar and others).
48. (45).Labour Appeal No,117 of 2002 (Umar Jan v. The Deputy Managing Director, N.-W.F.P. SIDB, Peshawar and others).
49. (46).Labour Appeal No,118 of 2002 (Shafaqat Ali Shah v. The Deputy Managing Director, N.-W.F.P.
50. SIDB, Peshawar and others).
51. (47).Labour Appeal No,119 of 2002 (Fazal Ghani v. The Deputy Managing Director, N.-W.F.P. SIDB, Peshawar and others).
52. (48).Labour Appeal No,120 of 2002 (Hafeezullah v. The Deputy Managing Director, N.-W.F.P. SIDB, Peshawar and others).
53. (49).Labour Appeal No,121 of 2002 (Khan Wali v. The Deputy Managing Director, N.-W.F.P. SIDB, Peshawar and others).
54. (50).Labour Appeal No,122 of 2002 (Sadiqur Rehman v. The Deputy Managing Director, N.-W.F.P.
55. SIDB, Peshawar and others).
56. (51).Labour Appeal No,123 of 2002 (Muhammad Anwar v. The Deputy Managing Director, N.-W.F.P.
57. SIDB, Peshawar and others).
58. (52).Labour Appeal No,124 of 2002 (Masiur Rehamn v. The Deputy Managing Director, N.-W.F.P. SIDB, Peshawar and others).
59. (53). Labour Appeal No,125 of 2002 (Saeed Shah v. The Deputy Managing Director, N.-W.F.P. SIDB, Peshawar and others).
60. (54). Labour Appeal No,126 of 2002 (Hazrat Ali v. The Deputy Managing Director, N.-W.F.P. SIDB, Peshawar and others).
61. (55). Labour Appea! No,127 of 2002 (Gul Said Khan v. The Deputy Managing Director, N.-W.F.P. SIDB, Peshawar and others).
62. (56).Labour Appeal No,128 of 2002 (Umar Khitab v. The Deputy Managing Director, N.-W.F.P. SIDB, Peshawar and others).
63. (57). Labour Appeal No,129 of 2002 (Abdul Rehman v. The Deputy Managing Director, N.-W.F.P. SIDB, Peshawar and others).
64. (58).Labour Appeal No,130 of 2002 (Sher Daraz Khan v. The Deputy Managing Director, N.-W.F.P. SIDB, Peshawar and others).
65. (59).Labour Appeal No,131 of 2002 (Nazir Jan v. The Deputy Managing Director, N.-W.F.P. SIDB, Peshawar and others).
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the SIDB/establishment contended that the petitioners are not workers/employees within the meaning of section 2 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance and as such could not invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under section 25-A of the I.R.O., that in the absence of any grievance notices having been served upon the Establishment, na grievance petition either be filed or could be entertained by the Labour Court and as such entire exercise culminating into passing of the impugned order is nullity in the eye of law; that the grant of Golden Hand Shake by the Labour Court beyond the perimeters of prayer made in the grievance petition and as such not tenable; that the termination of the petitioners has been made in accordance with the terms and conditions of their appointment letters and as such they are not entitled to Golden Hand Shake granted by the Presiding Officer as the same was not their conferred rights; that the pJitioners have no legal right to invoke the jurisdiction of Labour Court and that presently some employees/workers have been employed in the said Project on daily wage basis in order to keep the machinery/equipment in working condition. Placed reliance at 1990 PLC 360 (Muhammad Sharif and others v. Messrs AEG Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited) and NLR 1981 (TD) 603 (Abdul Saeed v. Abdur Rashid Mir, Prop, Kenyan Carpet Industries, Karachi) and prayed that order of the Labour Court with regard to the grant of Golden Hand Shake be struck down and the grievance petition be dismissed.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioners/sacked, employees of the Centre, has submitted that there is nothing on the record to establish that the Centre was running into losses; that no prior sanction with regard to the closure of the Centre in terms of 11-A of the Standing Order Ordinance has been obtained from the Labour Court, thereby nullifying the termination orders of the petitioners; that proper grievance notices has been served upon the Establishment; that the fact that the working of various persons in the Centre, itself indicates that the Centre has not been closed, as alleged, in the termination order under the cover of restructuring of the Centre and that the petitioners by all means come within the definition of workers as enunciated in the relevant provisions of I.R.O. And finally prayed that the order of the learned Labour Court with regard to the grant of Golden Hand Shake be set aside and the petitioners be reinstated in service with all back- benefits.
7. During the course of arguments before this Court, it was felt that in order to know the present state of affairs of the Centre/Project, the statement of concerned person was required to be recorded. Therefore, Muhammad Rafiq, Project Manager, Wood Working Centre Karak was examined as CW-1 on 17-9-2003. In his statement, he has admitted that presently, as many as19 employees are working in the said Centre/Project on daily wage basis. He has also placed on record certain work orders, received from various Institutions for manufacturing of furniture, running into millions of rupees vide Exh. CW 1/2 to Exh. CW 1/6. He also admitted that after the termination of the petitioners, several work orders were received and some of the work orders have since been completed.
8. The first point as to whether the petitioners were workers within the meaning of section 2 (xxviii) for the I.R.O. Or otherwise, suffice to say that it would be proper to reproduce the said section which reads as under:-- "Worker" and "Workman" means any person not falling within the definition of employer who is employed (including employment [as a supervisor or] as an apprentice) in an establishment or industry for hire or reward either directly or through a contractor whether the terms of employment be expressed or implied, and, for the purpose of any proceedings under this Ordinance in relation to an industrial dispute includes a person who has been dismissed, discharged, retrenched, laid off or otherwise removed from employment in connection with or as a consequence of that dispute or whose dismissal, discharge, retrenchment, lay off, or removal has led to the dispute (but does not include any person)--"
9. Undisputedly, the petitioners were employed in the Wood Working Centre where their nature of duties was that of manual in character as they were discharging multifarious duties in the Centre and there is nothing on the record, rather the Establishment has failed to prove by leading cogent and documentary evidence to the effect that the petitioners were given any powers of hire and fire, as such powers are considered a sine qua non for ousting a person out of the definition of workman'. Furthermore, the evidence on record also establishes that the petitioners have been working in the said Centre for the last more than one decade without any break in their service and have been receiving annual increments regularly. As the strength of employees working in the Centre was more than 20, therefore, the provisions of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 are applicable to the Centre as envisaged in section 1(4)(a) of the Ordinance ibid and in this way under Standing Order 1 (b) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), a 'permanent workman' is a workman who has been engaged on work of permanent nature likely to last more than nine months and has satisfactorily completed a probationary period of three months in the same or another occupation in the industrial or commercial establishment. It is also worth-mentioning to note that the sole witness of the Establishment, namely, Muhammad Rafique, Project Manager of the closed project while appearing as RW-1 has stated in his cross-examination before the Court:-- "It is correct that the employees who have filed grievance petition in this Honourable Court were permanent employees of the project".
66. ' Besides, the name of the Project/Centre, the appointment letters of the petitioners showing their nomenclature as well as their termination orders, impugned herein, themselves indicate that they were performing their duties exclusively requiring manual exertion, therefore, by any canons of definition, the petitioners are workers within the meaning of section 2 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance and Standing Order 1 (b) of the Standing Order Ordinance and as such they have all legal rights to approach the Labour Court for the redress of their grievance under section 25-A of the I.R.O. I am supported in my view by the dictum of august Supreme Court reported as 1998 TD (Lahore 329) titled as "Mustekhum Cement Ltd., through Managing Director v. Abdul Rashid and others".
10. The second contention of the learned counsel for the SIDB/Establishment is that no grievance notice was served upon the high-ups of the Management; suffice to say that LPW-2 Mira Dad in his examination-in-chief has clearly stated that the grievance notices were served upon the establishment on 6-8-2001 which remained un-replied. This assertion of the P.W.-2 has neither been questioned by the other side nor RW-I has denied it, Even during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the SIDB has simply stated that no grievance notice was served upon the 'employer ' i,e, the Managing Director but in the instant case it is pertinent to note that the Deputy Managing Director has terminated the service of the petitioners and the petitioners too served the grievance notices upon the Deputy Managing Director and also during the course of arguments, when the learned counsel for the employees was asked about the postal receipts showing dispatch of grievance notices to the Deputy Managing Director, it was replied that the notices were not sent through post rather the same were personally served upon the Deputy Managing Director by the employees.
11. So far as the third contention of the learned counsel that the Centre was running into losses and to avoid further losses to the SIDB, the Centre was closed and resultantly, the petitioners' services were terminated in accordance with the terms and conditions of their service and as such they were not entitled to any Golden Hand Shake as given by the Labour Court nor they can legally claim their reinstatement. The question for determination is that as to whether the Establishment/Centre was closed in accordance with law or not. Standing Order 11-A of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 deals with the matter of closure of the Establishment which is reproduced as under:- "11-A. Closure of Establishment.---Notwithstanding anything contained in Standing Order 11, no employer shall (terminate the employment or more than 50 per cent of the workmen or) close down the whole of the Establishment without prior permission of the Labour Court in this behalf, except in the event of fire, catastrophe, stoppage of power supply, epidemics or civil commotion."
67. ' So from the above provision of law, it becomes crystal clear that before closure of the entire Establishment/Centre, it was incumbent upon the high-ups of the Board to have obtained prior approval from the Labour Court but the evidence led by the Establishment in support of termination of services of the petitioners as result of alleged financial losses to the Centre clearly reveals that though out of 5.0 employees working in the Centre, as many as 45 employees were sacked yet despite that no such approval within the meanings of Standing Order 11-A was obtained which is a fatal legal lacuna and in the absence of any such approval, the entire process of termination of the petitioners' service is nullity in the eye of law. It is astonishing to note that on one hand, the Board/Establishment claims that the staff/petitioners services were terminated as a result of restructuring of the Project, but RW-1 Muhammad Rafique, Project Manager, Wood Working Centre, Karak who appeared before the Labour Court as sole witness of the Establishment/SIDB, has been examined again by the this Court as CW-1 on 17-9-2003 in order to know about the present employment position in the Centre and it is admitted by him that presently 19 employees have been working in the Centre and it has also been brought to the notice of this Court by bringing on record documentary evidence to the effect that after the termination of the petitioners, the Project/Centre had completed work orders of millions of rupees and at present, the Project is having work orders of more than Rs,7 millions vide Exh. CW.1/2 to Exh. CW. 1/6. This fact alone indicates that the Project/Centre has not been closed so far which totally negates the stance taken by the Board regarding sustaining of losses by the project as had there been any losses, the Project would have been completely closed and the Centre would not have been receiving work orders for the manufacture of the furniture as admitted by the Project Manager in his statement recorded in this Court on 17-9-2003.
12. As regards the grant of Golden Hand Shake to the petitioners, it is very strange to observe that once the learned Labour Court came to a conclusion that the petitioners had made out a case for their reinstatement by observing that:- "The above referred supply orders were made/received after the issuance of termination order of employees on 26-7-2001, Receipt of orders and supply of furniture to the desirous department covering lacs of rupees shows that the Contre was not closed rather it was functioning satisfactorily. These facts are sufficient to draw adverse inference against the respondents about closure of Wood Working Centre, Karak." ' then there was no occasion to make reference to the application of the petitioners dated 29-5- 2002 wherein the petitioners on account of financial hardships had requested for payment of legal dues pending decision of their grievance petitions and thus drew a misconceived inference that the petitioners have waived off their right of re-instatement and demanded Golden Shake Hand.
68. Once the learned Labour Court came to a conclusion that the respondents' claim regarding closure of the entire Establishment is false, then the petitioners had every legal right to be reinstated in service as the Labour Laws are meant for the betterment of the downtrodden workers.
69. I am fortified in my findings by the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reported as PLD 2000 Supreme Court 207 titled as "Lahore Development Authority through D.G. Lahore and another v. Abdul Shafique and others", wherein their Lordships have held:-- "The I.R.O. Is basically beneficial legislation which provide for protection of the rights of labour classes. Its object amongst other is to ameliorate the conditions of workers. Such legislation has to be construed liberally and beneficially. A restricted constructure of the provisions of the I.R.O. Would defeat the manifest objective of the legislation."
70. ' Besides, it is worth-mentioning to note that the employees of the Pak German Wood Working Centre, Peshawar and the Headquarters were given Golden Hand Shake after negotiation with the.
71. Employees' Union and the Management of the Board was signatory to the agreements arrived at with them. But in the instant case, both the employees' Union entered into dialogue with the Management for arriving at agreeable terms and conditions of any such scheme nor the Management itself came forward with any such scheme. As both the Projects i,e, Pak German Wood Working Centre, Peshawar and Wood Working Centre, Karak are two different entities, therefore, the terms and conditions of the Golden Hand Shake may be different. Therefore, in the absence of any such agreement highlighting the terms and conditions of the agreement, willingness/acceptance of the petitioners apart, the findings of the learned Labour Court regarding grant of Golden Hand Shake to the petitioners are not sustainable. Therefore, the appeals of the SIDB/Establishment bearing Nos. 72 of 2002 to 101 to 2002, regarding the grant of Golden Hand Shake are disposed of in the above terms.
13. So far as the appeals filed by the petitioners bearings Nos. 71 to 2002, 103 of 2002 to 131 to 2112 are concerned, in view of my findings in Paragraphs Nos.9, 10 and 11 above, the petitioners are entitled to be re-instated in service. Besides, re-instatement, they are also entitled to full back-benefits in that there is no evidence on the record to show that the petitioners remained employed somewhere else and the onus to prove their empoyment somewhere else remained on the Establishment which they could not. In addition to it, the application dated 29-5-2002 submitted by the petitioners for the payment of legal dues itself proves that they were unemployed and were suffering from financial constraints. Had they been employed by any other concern, the Management of the Project/Centre would have brought on record or at least asserted that the petitioners had been working in other Establishments and that they had not been suffering from any financial hardships but the record is short of any such denial on the part of the Management/Board. As such, the appeals filed by the petitioners/employees, referred to above, are accepted and the appellants are reinstated in service with full back-benefits.
14. Resultantly, the appeals filed by the SIDB/Establishment bearing Nos.72 of 2002 to 101 of 2002 are disposed of in the above terms while the appeals filed by the employees (petitioners before the Labour Court) bearing Nos.71 of 2002 and 103 of 2002 to 131 of 2002 are accepted as discussed above.
15. Before parting with the judgment, it may be observed that since the petitioners are being reinstated with all back-benefits, therefore, after their re-instatement and payment of entire back benefits/dues, if the Establishment still intends to go ahead with the Programme of restructuring of the Project/Centre, they may proceed but strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Labour Laws.