Find a Lawyer

Application No. 5 of 1971, decided on 23rd April 1971.

‑Temporary injunction‑Workers' Union having made application for enforcement of rights of workers accruing under a settlement seeking temporary injunction against termination of service of workers‑Facts on record Indicating efforts on part of employer to annul effect of benefits due under Settle ment‑Case, in circumstances, held, fit for grant of temporary injunction‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 34 and Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX; rr. 1 & 2.

Saeed Pasha Lodhi for Applicants.

Masud Mirza for Respondents.

The applicant‑Union consists of employees of the Gulbar Restaurant. They plead that a settlement was reached between the parties in conciliation proceedings before the Assistant Director, Labour Welfare Mr. M. R. K. Ghori on 2nd February 1971. The photostat copy of that agreement has been filed alongwith Application No. 214/71 under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. They allege that in order to annul the effect of that agreement the respondents Gulbar Restaurant wants to do away with the services of the old employees of the Restaurant by giving them one month's notice. This notice was given on 22nd March 1971 and it was to expire on 21st April 1971. In Application No. 214/71 there was a prayer for the enforcement of the right, which accrue to the applicants in terms of the agreement. Alongwith this application No. 5/71 was filed by the applicant‑Union with a prayer for temporary injunction restraining the respondents from terminating their services. Mr. Masud Mirza appeared for the respondents. His statement on the last date was to the following effect.

(a) the partnership has been dissolved,

(b) the concern is going to be closed and the Management is prepared to pay the legal dues of the employees on the day of termination of their services.

By consent of the parties, therefore, it was decided that the applicants will go to the respondents to receive their legal dues on 22nd April 1971 and the matter was posted for today.

2. Mr. Saeed Pasha Lodhi appears for the applicant Union and Mr. Masud Mirza for the respondent Management. Conten tions of Mr. Lodhi are as follows: ‑

(a) when the workers went to receive their wages the Management refused to pay their legal dues, instead they offered them wages for 21 days only;

(b) the partnership has not been dissolved and the concern has not been closed;

(c) all these manoeuvres aim in only one direction, i.e. to remove the present employees and deprive them of their lawful dues and to start afresh with the fresh hands.

3. Mr. Masud Mirza replies as follows: ‑

(a) the partnership is in the process of dissolution subject to completion of accounts;

(b) it is correct that the Management did not offer the legal dues to the workers and it was because they were short of funds.

4. The above circumstances indicate only in one direction i.e. that on the face of it the employers want to annul the effect of benefits which go to the employees in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties before the Conciliator. This is therefore, a fit case where an injunction restraining the Management from terminating the services of the employees before the legal dues of the employees era paid may issue and I accordingly issue such injunction pending disposal of the application.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.