Ehsan Elahi Textile Mills
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Ehsan Elahi Textile Mills as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 3,615
- Pages: 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 chargesheet. 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-urRehman, 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-urRehman, 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 30.09.1997 1998-1999 30.09.1998 1999-2000 30.09.1999 2000-2001 30.09.2000 2001-2002 30.09.2001 2002-2003
Declared loss 230,434.00 205,515.00 20,307,966.00 31,842,013.00 9,567,199.00
Assessed loss 156,252.00 105,376.00 9,091,689.00 30,461,766.00 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 reorganize 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 30.09.1997 1998-1999 30.09.1998 1999-2000 30.09.1999 2000-2001
Declared loss 230,434.00 205,515.00 20,307,966.00
Assessed loss 156,252.00 105,376.00 9,091,689.00
30.09.2000 30.09.2001
2001-2002 2002-2003
31,842,013.00 9,567,199.00
Paid up Capital of the company
30,461,766.00 Under assessment 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.
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 chargesheet. 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-urRehman, 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-urRehman, 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 30.09.1997 1998-1999 30.09.1998 1999-2000 30.09.1999 2000-2001 30.09.2000 2001-2002 30.09.2001 2002-2003
Declared loss 230,434.00 205,515.00 20,307,966.00 31,842,013.00 9,567,199.00
Assessed loss 156,252.00 105,376.00 9,091,689.00 30,461,766.00 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 reorganize 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 30.09.1997 1998-1999 30.09.1998 1999-2000 30.09.1999 2000-2001
Declared loss 230,434.00 205,515.00 20,307,966.00
Assessed loss 156,252.00 105,376.00 9,091,689.00
30.09.2000 30.09.2001
2001-2002 2002-2003
31,842,013.00 9,567,199.00
Paid up Capital of the company
30,461,766.00 Under assessment 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.
Related Documents
Ehsan Elahi Textile Mills
November 2019 18
Shadab Textile Mills
November 2019 2
Saif Textile Mills
June 2020 6
Ahmad Hassan Textile Mills
May 2020 9
Universal Textile Mills Vs Nlrc.docx
June 2020 5