Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: FARYAD HUSSAIN VS Respondent: MANAGER, SAAD TEXTILE INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., JUDGMENT
Court Name: Labour Appellate Tribunal Judge(s): Mian Ghulam Ahmad Title:FARYAD HUSSAIN vs MANAGER, SAAD TEXTILE INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD.,
JUDGMENT
Reported As: 2000 PLC 700 Result: Appeal accepted Judgment JUDGMENT ' The appeal is directed against the decision dated 14-5-1998, delivered by the learned Labour Court, Faisalabad, rejecting the stay application, as also the main grievance petition, submitted by Faryad Hussain, who had been working with the respondent concern, as a Weaver. 2. The learned lower Court has come to the plain conclusion that the Saad Textile Industries were liquidated w,e,f, 1-7-1997, and the proprietorship/mamagement of the defunct company having ceased to exist, would not be liable for taking back in service the labourers including the appellant, who cannot be absorbed in an establishment which no longer exists and operates. 3 The appellant has, however, successfully endeavored to convince this Court that the same organization is operative under a different and a new name, namely, Jabeen Weaving Factory and only a fake and wrongful bid has been made to deprive the employees of the concern, Saad Textile Industries, Faisalabad, to lay claim to service benefits, including their continuance in service. 4. No worthwhile material has been placed on record in proof of the fact that on valid premises and in a lawful manner the process of liquidation had been undertaken and carried to conclusion. No permission had been obtained from the Labour Court concerned for closure of the factory under Order 11-A, Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, and the closure claimed thus has to be treated as a fictitious and a sham exercise. It is averred that the same Directors and the same members of the Staff are working with the concern, having assumed a new name, for tax evasion and a variety of other ulterior considerations and unholy objectives. 5. The Court should have proceeded to record evidence, to be led by the parties, and only in the light thereof, correct conclusion could be deduced. It has to be treated as a slipshod exercise, and
---
## Page 2
the impugned decision, which cannot stand judicial scrutiny, has to be reversed. I proceed to set aside the order dated 14-5-1998, by acceptance of appeal, with costs. 6. The case is remanded to the leaned Court below for its decision afresh, in accordance with law.