Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: METRO GARMENTS INDUSTRIES, KARACHI VS Respondent: RAIS AHMEDHonorable Justice Agha Ali HyderWasi Ahmed,Salim Raza,
1993 P L C 146
1993 P L C 146
[Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh]
Present: Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal
METRO GARMENTS INDUSTRIES, KARACHI
versus
RAIS AHMED and 94 others
Appeal No. KAR‑535 of 1991, decided on 13th August, 1992.
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S.O. 11(3)‑‑‑Lay off‑‑‑Employees earlier were laid off for 14 days and were paid compensation for same, but there was further` delay in resumption of work and employees who were still on roll of employers, could not seek employment elsewhere‑‑‑Employees were entitled to remuneration till the date when work was resumed by employers.
Taj Restaurant v. Workers Union and another 1975 PLC 154 ref.
Wasi Ahmed, Representative for Appellant.
Salim Raza, Representative for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 13th August, 1992.
DECISION
The Appellant are doing business of readymade garments export. It is alleged that for want of fresh orders they had laid off the workers numbering about 95 from 24‑3‑1991 to 6‑4‑1991 and paid compensation for the same. However, there was further delay in the resumption of work and the workers as a result had instituted proceedings before the Labour Court, culminating in this order.
2. It was found therein that for the period commencing from 24‑3‑1991 till the date the work was resumed by the Appellant and it is an admitted position that all, the workers who had been laid off earlier had been taken on duty the were entitled to the remuneration.
3. Standing Order 11(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 clearly stipulates that workers may be laid off for a period of 14 days on the payment of compensation and if they are to be laid‑off for an indefinite period then it is open to the employer to terminate their service after giving them due notice or pay in lieu thereof.
4. Mr. Wasi Ahmed learned representative for the appellant maintained that the lay‑off being of indefinite duration the provisions of the Standing Order 11(3) would not be attracted.
5. This contention has already been examined in all details in a case of this Tribunal reported as Taj Restaurant v. Workers Union and another 1975 PLC 154. It has also been argued by Mr. Saleem Raza learned representative of the respondents that as the respondents were still on the rolls of the appellant it was not possible for them to seek employment elsewhere, as section 48 of the Factories Act had to be reckoned with. There is force in his contention.
6. I am afraid the appeal has no substance. I will therefore dismiss it and uphold the impugned order.
H.B.T./2078/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.