BEFORE THE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER,

PUNJAB LABOUR COURT NO. 9, MULTAN.

Petition No. ________/2003

Muhammad Aasim Khan Saddozai

Vs.
General Manger, Ehsan Elahi Industries, (Pvt.) Ltd.

WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT.

Respectfully Sheweth: -
Preliminary Objections: -

1. That initiation of disciplinary proceedings is a routine matter

of Industrial & Commercial Establishment (Standing Order)
Ordinance; and it would not lead to any presumption of unfair
labour practice on the part of employer. Issuance of charge-
sheet, holding of enquiry to a defaulting worker, is prerogative
of employer and any court is not vested with any power to
stay disciplinary proceedings against any employee, even if
such employee happened to be an important and prominent
office bearer of Union. Service of show-cause notice on an
employee on grounds of misconduct, could not be treated as
an act of unfair labour practice. As taking part in union
activities would not give licence to an employee to commit
misconduct, whether charges levelled against employee are
correct or not is a matter to be enquired into and decided
under relevant law by the employer. If charges are proved
against the employee, he could hardly assail same as
constituting unfair labour practice on the part of employer. If
 an action is taken against employee, he could challenge the
same by filing grievance petition under section 46 of I.R.O.
2002 or in other appropriate court, which is an adequate and
self-sufficient remedy. Reliance is placed on 1990 PLC 662,
1987 PLC 547, 1994 PLC 131, 1994 PLC 306, 1994 PLC
35, 1994 PLC 747 & 1989 PLC 400.

2. That the contention taken by the petitioner that since

referendum was due and that is why he has been dismissed
from service to refrain him from taking part in the trade union
activities, is not correct. The fact remains that the earlier
Collective Bargaining Agent was certified for a two years
term from 3rd May, 2001 and its period was to expire on 1st
May, 2003. On promulgation of I.R.O. 2002, tenure of
C.B.A.-ship has been extended to three years, which is
applicable to the present C.B.A. also. The judgment of
Hon’ble Justice Tasadduq Hussain Jilani in W.P. No.
decided on is very much clear that any
Collective Bargaining Agent whose tenure of two years
expires on 25th of October, 2002 and afterwards, they would
enjoy the status of C.B.A. for a period of three years. Copy of
judgment is attached.

3. That the petitioner has been dismissed from service on the

basis of misconduct. The suspension of dismissal order
amounts to status quo ante, which is not approved by the
Superior Courts of the country. Reliance is placed on the
following judgments. 1998 S.C.M.R. 68, 1997 S.C.M.R.
1508, 1989 S.C.M.R. 1858, 2003 PLC 52 & 2002 PLC 207.
The Hon’ble Judge of Lahore High Court in a case
reported in 2002 PLC 207 observed as follows: -

“Re-instatement was the main relief claimed by the

respondent No. 2 before the learned Labour Court,
which could not have been granted by way of interim
order. It amounts to thrusting the respondent No. 2 on
the petitioner i.e. the employer without determining the
 question of law and facts arising in the case. Reference
may be made to Islamic Republic of Pakistan Vs.
Muhammad Zaman Khan 1997 S.C.M. 1508. In the
said case, services of the Income Tax Services Tribunal
were terminated. The order terminating their services
was suspended by this Court. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court of Pakistan while interfering observed that
“Generally a court cannot grant interlocutory relief of
the nature which will amount to allowing the main case
without trial/hearing of the same.” The judgment in the
case of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, supra was noted
with approval in United Bank Ltd. Vs. Ehsan Akhtar &
others 1998 S.C.M.R. 68. Therefore, the impugned
order of the learned Labour Court is not sustainable on
this score as well. If in the present case the dismissal
order is suspended, this amounts to deciding the entire
case without trial of the case.

4. That on the basis of present petition, the dismissal order

cannot be suspended as under the said provision of law, this
Hon’ble Court can only restrain the employer from
committing acts of unfair labour practice, where there is
likelihood of commission of unfair labour practice.

5. That

6. That

7. That

ON FACTS: -

1. That para No. 1 not admitted as correct.

2. That para No. 2 is not admitted.

3. That para No. 3 is admitted to the extent that the petitioner is

workman within the meaning and contemplation of Standing
Order Ordinance and I.R.O. 1969.
4. That para No. 4 is not admitted as correct.

5. That para No. 5 is incorrect. The detail has been given in the
preliminary objections.

6. That in reply to para No. 6, it is stated that vide order dated

5.5.1999, the petitioner was given fresh recruitment in the
present establishment with effect from 1.6.1999, as far as the
previous length of service of the petitioner is concerned, the
petitioner was paid dues before this August Court on 8.9.2000
through settlement. Copies of orders are attached. It is
pertinent to mention here that the present management took
the charge of establishment with effect from 1.1.1999.

7. That para No. 7 is not admitted as correct.

8. That para No. 8 is not admitted being incorrect.

9. That para No. 9 is also not admitted being incorrect.

10. That para No. 10 is not admitted.

10. That in reply to para No. 10 it is submitted that industry was

facing heavy financial loss and loan-giving agency was
pressing hard to repay the loan. Copy of letters from National
Bank Cantt. Branch are attached. As a result of financial loss,
the management was compelled to re-organize its working
and the post of the petitioner was abolished and his services
were terminated. He was served with termination order dated
13.5.2000 by hand delivery, which he refused to receive and
the same was sent on his postal address on the record. The
same termination order was also published in the newspaper.
Copies are attached. Hence, the contention of the petitioner
that he was verbally terminated is totally incorrect.

11. That para No. 11 is not admitted being incorrect. No verbal

order was passed. Written order mentioning reason that
petitioner’s post stand abolished due to re-organization and
financial loss was served upon the petitioner, which he refused
 to receive by hand delivery and thereafter the same was sent at
his postal address on record and was also informed through
publication in newspaper.

12. That in reply to para No. 12 it is stated that the petitioner

served the grievance notice which was duly replied with and
sent to him stating the facts and law therein. It is incorrect that
the termination order was sent to the petitioner along-with
reply to grievance notice by the respondent.

13. That in reply to para No. 13, it is submitted that when the
petitioner refused to receive the termination order by hand
delivery, the cause of action did arise, whereas the other
contents of the para are concerned, they are totally baseless.

14. That para No. 14 is not admitted as correct.

15. That in reply to para No. 15, it is submitted that along-with

petitioner the services of other workmen/supervisors were also
terminated on the bases of re-organization carried out in the
establishment due to financial losses.

16. That para No. 16 is not admitted as correct. Detail has been
given in the para No. 15.

17. That para No. 17 is not admitted as correct. The company is

required either to give one month’s notice or to pay one
month’s salary in lieu thereof, which has been done in present
case.

18. That in reply to para No. 18, it is submitted that no verbal

order of termination was passed, written order mentioning the
reason was served upon the petitioner by hand delivery on
13.5.2002, which he refused to receive and thereafter was sent
to his postal address as already stated above.

19. That para No. 19 is not admitted.

20. That para No. 20 is not admitted. The petitioner served the
grievance notice which was duly replied with informing him
that his re-instatement cannot be made.

Prayer clause of the petition is incorrect. No

verbal order of termination has been passed. Written
order mentioning the reason of termination was served
upon the petitioner, which he refused to receive and
thereafter it was sent to his postal address. It was also
published in the daily “Nawa-e-Waqt” Multan (copy
attached).

In view of the above, it is respectfully prayed that

the petition may very kindly be dismissed with special
costs in the interest of justice.

Humble Respondent,

Dated: _________

Through: -
RIAZ-UL-HASSAN,
Advocate High Court,
38-Muhammadan Block,
District Courts, Multan.