Find a Lawyer

Application No. 53 of 1972, decided on 31st July 1912.

S. 45-Lock-out-Prohibition of-Union alleging lock-out resorted to without adopting prescribed procedure but Management contending termina tion of services simply due to continued and anticipated losses-- Balance-sheet indicating profit during last four years-Termination orders issued only after submission of charter of demands by, Union and failure of mutual discussion-Case in circumstances, held, that of prima facie illegal lock out and prohibitory order issued.

Gilani for Applicant.

Shaukat Ali A. Nanji for Respondent.

-In this application under section 45 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the applicant seeks prohibition of the lock-out alleged to have been illegally resorted to by the respondents since 20th June 1972.

The case of the applicant, who is the General Secretary, Pakistan Yin Industries Employees' Union, is that the Union was registered on 29th March -1972, and it presented a Charter of demands to the respondents, under section 26, on 8th May 1972. The respondents, who had never treated the workers fairly and properly since its establishment about 12 years back, resented the formation of the Union and got further annoyed on being present ed with the Charter of demands. The mutual discussions in respect of the demands, however, continued till 19th June 1972, but failed on account of the unjust and adament attitude of the respondents. Consequently, the Union arranged for holding a secret ballot en 20th June 1972, to ascertain the will of the mem bers for serving strike notice on the respondents. But, while the secret ballot proceedings were going on, one of the Directors of the respondent concern came in the Factory, ordered the closure of the industry, and turned out all the workers. Since then, the respondents have locked-out all the workers, without adopting the procedure laid down in section 26. The applicant lodged a com plaint with the Labour Directorate on 21st June 1972, but to no effect. Hence, he has moved this application alongwith an appli cation under section 34. He adds that the number of workers locked-out is 60.

The respondents deny that they have locked-out the workers. They have also denied that there was any industrial dispute pending at that time. According to them, the Factory was closed down on account of continued and anticipated losses, and the ser vices of the workers, whose number according to the respondents was 33, were terminated. The termination letters were issued to all the workers, and one of them accepted it, while the rest refused to accept the letters which were despatched to them by regis tered post. They further contend that it is the right of the em ployer to terminate the services of his employees, and the termi nation in the instant case was bona fide and legal.

Now, the respondents claim that they had to close down the Factory, and terminate the services of the workers, on account of continued losses they had suffered. Their letter of termination of the services of workers, dated 19th June 1972, shows that they had been running into losses since 12 years. But, the balance sheets of their accounts, produced by the learned representative of the applicant, showed that the respondents had, in fact, earned profits for the last four years. This is admitted by Akbar Pabani, the Director of the respondent concern, in his affidavit. He, however, explains that the profits are small and are due to the fact that he and the Managing Director have not drawn any remuneration. However, whatever may be the reason, the fact remains that the respondents did make profits for the last four years and their plea that they terminated the services of the workers on account of continued losses does not appear to be correct. It is also significant that, though the respondent concern is alleged to have been running into losses for the last 12 years, the necessity to close it down arose only when the applicant-Union submitted the Charter of demands and on the very day when the Union was holding secret ballot for the purpose of strike. The respondents, while denying the existence of the industrial dispute, have not specifically denied the presentation of Charter of demands or the holding of the secret ballot.

In view of all these circumstances, I find that for the present there are clear indications that the respondents have locked-outs the workers. Since the lock-out has been resorted to without adopting the procedure laid down in the Law, it is prima facie Illegal. Consequently, the prohibitory order as prayed is issued, and the locked-out workers shall be allowed to resume work forthwith.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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