Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Industrial Relations Case No. 6 of 1970, decided on 4th August 1970.
Ss. 34 & 43 No industrial dispute under S. 43 pending--Application for seeking withdrawing of lock-out, in circumstances, held, not maintainable under S. 34.
MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN). This is an application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1959, hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance.
The case of the first party Union was that the second party resorted to an illegal lock-out after some alleged disturbances in the Mill and that due to this illegal lock-out the workers were inconvenienced. There was prayer for withdrawing of the lock-out and payment to the workers. There was also an application under section 45 of the Ordinance for prohibiting the lock-out. The second party filed, written statement in which it was stated, inter alia, that no industrial dispute was raised under section 43 of the Ordinance and as such; no dispute shall be deemed to exist. Section 26 of the Ordinance has provided a meaner fin which an industrial dispute should be raised and hence this petition is not maintainable and should be disposed of the second party also has given a detail account of the disturbances in the factory which emanated from creation of riotous atmosphere in the factory premises led by one Ziltur Ali.
Now the points for consideration in the present case are
(1) Whether the petition is maintainable
(2) What relief, if any, is the first party entitled to
Both the points are dealt with together for the sake of convenience.
At the time of hearing, it transpires that the first party did not raise any industrial dispute as is required under section 43 of the Ordinance by at first proceeding under section 29 o the same. This being the admitted position, the present application appears to be non-maintainable. The lock-out has been withdrawn by the second party at their own will and the preliminary difficulty is no longer there. The first party has alleged that they have not been paid for the period of illegal lock-out. In that case they can raise dispute under section 26 and proceed according for the provision of the relevant section.
In view of the above, in consultation of the Members I dismiss the application as not maintainable as the first party hats not observed the provisions of the Ordinance.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer