Anda di halaman 1dari 20

BEFORE THE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER,

PUNJAB LABOUR COURT NO. 9, MULTAN.

Petition No. ________/2002

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

Petition U/s 25-A I.R.O. 1969.


WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT.

Respectfully Sheweth: -
Preliminary Objections: -

1. That the petitioner is not a workman within the meaning of


Standing Order Ordinance and I.R.O. 1969. The petitioner is
performing duties of Supervisory nature, drawing salary more
than Rs. 800/- per month and is a Supervisor not workman.

2. That the company has not been made party in the petition,
therefore the petition is not maintainable.

3. That the petitioner has got no cause of action against the


respondent.

4. That the petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition.

5. That the Hon’ble Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain and


adjudicate upon the present matter.

6. That the petitioner did not approach this Hon’ble Court with
clean hands, hence, petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. That the contents of the petition are based on malafide and
baseless accusations.

8. That there is no verbal termination order, hence, the petition is


liable to be dismissed state-away.

ON FACTS: -

1. That para No. 1 not admitted as correct. The fact is that


petitioner is on the employment of present management with
effect from 1.6.99.

2. That para No. 2 is not admitted.

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


covered under Social Security Ordinance. He is not a
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.
BEFORE THE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER,
PUNJAB LABOUR COURT NO. 9, MULTAN.

Petition No. ________/2002

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

Petition U/s 25-A I.R.O. 1969.


Application for suspension of verbal order
of termination from service.
WRITTEN STATEMENT.

Respectfully Sheweth: -
Preliminary Objections: -
1. That there is no verbal order of termination, therefore,
question of its suspension does not arise at all. The petitioner
was actually proceeded against for remaining absent from
duty for more than 10 days without prior permission and
information, hence, was dismissed from the service.
2. That the applicant has got no prima facie case at all.
3. That balance of convenience is not in favour of the applicant,
but is in favour of the respondent.
4. That the petitioner/applicant will not have to suffer an
irreparable loss.
5. That the contents of reply to petition and preliminary
objections may kindly be considered as part and parcel of the
suspension application.
ON FACTS: -
1. That para No. 1 is formal.
2. That para No. 2 is not admitted.
2. That para No. 2 is not admitted.
3. That para No. 3 is not admitted.
3. That para No. 4 is not admitted.
Counter affidavit is attached.
Prayer clause of the application is not admitted.
As there is no verbal order of termination, hence it
requires no suspension. The petitioner was issued
charge-sheet, for which he failed to submit the reply,
thereafter, inquiry notice was sent, the petitioner was
failed to appear before the Inquiry Officer,
consequently the Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry
ex-parte and submitted his report to the management.
The petitioner was issued Second Show Cause Notice
and was asked for personal hearing, but he failed to
reply the Show Cause Notice and did not appear in
person for personal hearing. Since, the misconduct of
the petitioner was proved, therefore he was dismissed
from service.
In view of above, it is respectfully prayed that
application in hand along-with the main petition and
affidavit may graciously be dismissed with costs in the
interest of justice.
Humble Respondent,
Dated: ________

Through: -
RIAZ-UL-HASSAN,
Advocate High Court,
38-Muhammadan Block,
District Courts, Multan.
BEFORE THE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER,
PUNJAB LABOUR COURT NO. 9, MULTAN.

Petition No. ________/2002

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

Petition U/s 25-A I.R.O. 1969.


Application for suspension of verbal order
of termination from service.
WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Ch. Muhammad Sarif General Manager, Ehsan Elahi
Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. Multan.

I, the above named deponent do hereby


solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of
the above-mentioned application are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief
and nothing has been kept concealed thereto.

DEPONENT

Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day
of July 2002 that the contents of this affidavit are
true & correct to the best of my knowledge and
belief.

DEPONENT
BEFORE THE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER,
PUNJAB LABOUR COURT NO. 9, MULTAN.

Petition No. ________/2002

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

Petition U/s 25-A I.R.O. 1969.


WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT.

Respectfully Sheweth: -
Preliminary Objections: -

1. That the company has not been made party in the petition,
therefore the petition is not maintainable.

2. That the petitioner has got no cause of action against the


respondent.

3. That the petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition.

4. That the Hon’ble Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain and


adjudicate upon the present matter.

5. That the petitioner did not approach this Hon’ble Court with
clean hands, hence, petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. That the contents of the petition are based on malafide and


baseless accusations.

7. That there is no verbal termination order, hence, the petition is


liable to be dismissed state-away.
ON FACTS: -

1. That para No. 1 not admitted as correct. The fact is that petitioner
is on the employment of present management with effect from
1.6.99.

2. That para No. 2 is not admitted.

3. That para No. 3 is admitted.

4. That para No. 4 is admitted.

5. That in reply para No. 5, 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.

6. That para No. 6 is not admitted.

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

8. That para No. 8 is not admitted being incorrect. The fact remains
that the petitioner was charge-sheeted for remaining absent from
duty for more than 10 days without prior permission or
information, for which charge-sheet on 23.5.2002 was sent to him
at his postal address (copies of charge sheet and postal receipts
are attached). The petitioner failed to submit reply to the charge-
sheet. The management appointed an inquiry officer to inquire
into the matter. Inquiry notice dated 28.5.2002 was sent to the
petitioner, wherein he was asked to appear before the Inquiry
Officer on 3.6.2002 (copies of inquiry notice and postal receipt
are attached). The petitioner failed to appear before the Inquiry
Officer, which was conducted ex-parte. Inquiry Officer submitted
his report, in which he found the petitioner guilty of charges
levelled against him. The petitioner was issued second Show
Cause Notice and was also asked to appear in person for personal
hearing. But the petitioner failed to appear for personal hearing
and also did not reply the second Show Cause Notice. (Copies of
second Show Cause Notice and postal receipt are attached).
Consequently, the petitioner was dismissed from service vide
dismissal order dated 9.6.2002. Therefore, the contention of the
petitioner is totally baseless.

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


order was sent to him vide registered post at his own him address.

10.That in reply to para No. 10, it is submitted that the petitioner


sent a grievance notice which was duly replied and the petitioner
was asked to attend the duty, but he failed to do so. He was also
informed that the charge-sheet has already been sent to him at
him home address.

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

12.That in reply to para No. 12 it is stated that grievance notice was


duly replied by the respondents within the stipulated time period
as per requirement of law.

13.That para No. 13 is not admitted as correct.

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

15.That para No. 15 is incorrect. Reply has already been given in the
previous paras.

16.That para No. 16 is admitted.

17.That para No. 17 is not admitted as correct. No verbal order has


been passed. The petitioner was absent from duty for more than
10 days, proper disciplinary procedure was adopted as per
requirement of law and thereafter was dismissed from service.

18.That para No. 18 is not admitted as correct.

Prayer clause of the petition is incorrect. No


verbal order of termination has been passed. The
petitioner was issued charge-sheet, for which he failed
to submit the reply, thereafter, inquiry notice was sent,
the petitioner was failed to appear before the Inquiry
Officer, consequently the Inquiry Officer conducted the
inquiry ex-parte and submitted his report to the
management. The petitioner was issued Second Show
Cause Notice and was asked for personal hearing, but
he failed to reply the Show Cause Notice and did not
appear in person for personal hearing. Since, the
misconduct of the petitioner was proved, therefore he
was dismissed from service. Copies of charge-sheet,
inquiry notice, second show cause notice and dismissal
order are attached with postal receipts.

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.

BEFORE THE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER,


PUNJAB LABOUR COURT NO. 9, MULTAN.
Petition No. ________/2002

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

Petition U/s 25-A I.R.O. 1969.


ADDITIONAL LEGAL OBJECTION.

Respectfully Sheweth: -

1. That aforesaid petition U/s 25-A of I.R.O is pending


adjudication before this Hon’ble Court and is fixed for today.

2. That the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 has been


repealed and new Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 has
come into force. Hence, the petition is not maintainable in its
present form, therefore is liable to be dismissed.

It is therefore, respectfully prayed that the above


mentioned legal objecxtion may kindly be upheld and
the above-titled petition may kindly be dismissed in the
interest of justice.
Humble Applicant,
Dated: 2.12.2002

BEFORE THE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER,


PUNJAB LABOUR COURT NO. 9, MULTAN.
Petition No. ________/2003

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

Petition U/s 25-A I.R.O. 1969.


REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT

Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That the above-titled case is fixed for hearing for 03.03.03.
The Advocate for the respondent is proceeding to Rawalpindi
in connection with his domestic affairs.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the


above-titled case may please be adjourned to some
other date convenient to this Hon’ble Court in the
interest of justice.

Dated: 01.03.03

Advocate for respondent: -

RIAZ-UL-HASSAN,
Advocate
38-Muhammadan Block,
District Courts, Multan.

BEFORE THE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER,


PUNJAB LABOUR COURT NO. 9, MULTAN.
Application No. ________/2003

Ehsan Elahi Industries, (Pvt.) Ltd. through its Director Ch. Ateeq-ur-
Rehman, 61-C, Industrial Estate, Multan.
……Applicant
VERSUS

Labour Union, (Collective Bargaining Agent) Ehsan Elahi Industries


(Pvt.) Ltd. 61-C, Industrial Estate, Multan.
……Respondent

Application under 11-A of West Pakistan


Industrial & Commercial Employment
(Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968.

Application for permission to close down


Ehsan Elahi Industries (Pvt.) Ltd.

Respectfully Sheweth: -

The applicant submits as under: -

1. That Ehsan Elahi Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. is registered as a


private company and engaged in the manufacture of yarn and
the application is being moved by its Director Ch. Ateeq-ur-
Rehman, who is fully authorized to file this application and
well-conversant with the facts of the case.

2. That the respondent Union is one of the registered trade union


in the factory and at present certified as Collective Bargaining
Agent (CBA).
3. That the paid capital of company is Rs. 10,000,000/-. As
against this, long term loans todate are approximately
Rs. 98,000,000/-, outstanding interest due on these loans is
approximately Rs. 52,000,000/-, and repayments over-due
principal amount is approximately Rs. 20,000,000/-, that have
to be paid to various loan giving agencies. In addition to this,
other payable to creditors comes to around Rs. 20.00 Million.

4. That the financial result of the company ever since it went into
production reveal that it has been consistently incurring
losses. Detail of losses i.e. declared loss and assessed loss is
as under: -
Income year Assessment year Declared loss Assessed loss
30.09.1997 1998-1999 230,434.00 156,252.00
30.09.1998 1999-2000 205,515.00 105,376.00
30.09.1999 2000-2001 20,307,966.00 9,091,689.00
30.09.2000 2001-2002 31,842,013.00 30,461,766.00
30.09.2001 2002-2003 9,567,199.00 Under assessment

Copies of three audited accounts for the period 1998-99,


1999-2000 and 2000-2001 are attached as Annex “A, B & C”
and decision of assessed loss for 5 years are attached as
Annex “D/1 to D/ ”.

5. That from the aforesaid financial position of the last five


years, it will be clear and obvious that total accumulated loss
work out to Rs. 62,153,127/-.

6. That it will be not out of context to mention here that over the
past three years there have been occasions that the company
had to stop the operation for want of raw material due
exclusively to lack of finance. The company effected the
retrenchment to improve the position, but all in vain.

7. That the three years operation of this company made to all too
obvious that Ehsan Elahi Industries cannot be operated as
viable unit and the company cannot sustain further financial
loss now.

8. That the loan giving agencies are no more in a position to


advance further loan. Far from these, agencies are in fact
demanding from the company that the loans amount earlier
granted by them, be paid forthwith. The necessary implication
whereof being that if these amounts are not paid, the company
will have to altogether to go in for liquidation. Copy of the
letters received from various loan giving agencies are attached
as Annex “E/1 to E/ ”.

9. That originally, the mill was functioning in three shifts.


However, to avoid further losses and as a part of policy, to re-
organize the working of the establishment, reverted the
working to two shifts to avoid the losses. Even this policy did
not work and further financial losses continued with the result
that the total accumulated financial loss for the past three
years now exceeds more than paid up capital of the company.
Through further operation, the company reached a brink
where it is not possible for the company to meet the day to
day expenses.

10. That the electricity connection of the mills has been


disconnected by the WAPDA authorities due to shortage of
finance.

11. That in view of the aforesaid reasons, the management has


decided that the mills should be closed and in this connection,
necessary permission should be obtained from this Hon’ble
Court under West Pakistan Industrial & Commercial (Standing
Orders) Ordinance, 1968.

PRAYER: -
In view of the above, it is respectfully
prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to
grant the necessary permission to the
applicant to close down Ehsan Elahi
Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. 61-C, Industrial Estate,
Multan.

It is further prayed that in keeping in


view the precarious financial position of the
company, aforesaid application may kindly
be proceeded with on day to day basis any
prolonged delay is likely to adversely effect
the finances of the company.

For & on behalf of applicant,

Dated: ________

Ch. Ateeq-ur-Rehman,
Director, Ehsan Elahi
Industries (Pvt.) Ltd.

Verification: -

Verified on oath this _____ day of


April, 2003 that the contents of the
para No. 1 to are true and
correct.

Applicant

BEFORE THE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER,


PUNJAB LABOUR COURT NO. 9, MULTAN.
Application No. ________/2003

Ehsan Elahi Industries, (Pvt.) Ltd.


VERSUS
Labour Union, Ehsan Elahi Industries (Pvt.) Ltd.

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Ch. Ateeq-ur-Rehman S/o Ch. Habib-ur-Rehman,
Muslim, adult, Director Ehsan Elahi Industries (Pvt.)
Ltd. 61-C, Industrial Estate, Multan.

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm


and declare as under: -

1. That I am the Director of Ehsan Elahi Industries (Pvt.) Ltd.


61-C, Industrial Estate, Multan.

2. That what has been stated in para No. 1 to in the


accompanying application for permission to close down
the establishment, is true and correct to my knowledge and
belief and be read as part and parcel of this affidavit.

DEPONENT
Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day of
April, 2003 that the contents of this affidavit are true &
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Nothing
has been kept concealed thereto.
DEPONENT

Mohtarma Uzma Siddiqui

The government of Pakistan has made and promulgated


the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002. It shall apply to all
persons employed in any establishment or group of
establishment or industry except those employed (g) as a
member of Watch and Ward, security or fire service staff of an
oil refinery or of an establishment engaged in the production,
transmission or distribution of natural gas or liquefied
petroleum gas or petroleum products or of a sea-port or an
airport.

This is for your information.

Regards.

RIAZ-UL-HASSAN

EHSAN ILAHI INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD.


Income year Assessment year Declared loss Assessed loss
30.09.1997 1998-1999 230,434.00 156,252.00
30.09.1998 1999-2000 205,515.00 105,376.00
30.09.1999 2000-2001 20,307,966.00 9,091,689.00
30.09.2000 2001-2002 31,842,013.00 30,461,766.00
30.09.2001 2002-2003 9,567,199.00 Under assessment

Paid up Capital of the company 10,000,000.00

Long Term Loans

Allied Bank Principal 25,000,000.00

Name of the Union

1) Labour Union Ehsan Ilahi Industries (CBA)

2) Employees Union Ehsan Ilahi Industries (Non-CBA)

61-C, Industrial Estate, Multan.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai