Find a Lawyer

Application No.37of 1972, decided on 18th July 1972.

S. 45-Lock out-Prohibition of-Union alleging lock-out of several workers Management asserting wilful absence on part of some and denying other as their employees-Record indicating refusal by Management to accept request of some workers to be allowed to resume work Prohibitory order in respect of such workers only issued and question whether remaining workers were, actually employees of respondent left till determination of application under S.34.

Ali Amjad for Applicant.

Abdul Razzaq for Respondents.

.--In this application under section 45 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the applicant-Union seeks prohibition of the lock-out of 7 workers namely (1) Muhammad Ayub, (2) Noor Ahmad, (3) Muhammad Ismail, (4) Rehmatullah, (5) Noor Muhammad, (6) Muhammad Munir and (7) Sabir Ali, by the respondents, pending the disposal of their application under section 34 of the industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.

The case of the applicant-Union is that the workers named above are the office-bearers of the Union. The respondents have refused to allow them to perform their duties, on different dates between 9th May 1972 to 18th May 1972, without serving them with any letter of termination, discharge or dismissal. According to them, the respondents have been indulging in the harassment and the victimisation of the office-bearers of the Union and the workers because the later had been demanding the Implementation of the terms of the Settlement between the workmen and the respondents, which the latter have refused to do. They further state that the above-named workers have been locked-out even without any notice to that effect.

The respondents contend that the application is not main tainable, firstly, because the number oaf their employees is less than 50, and secondly, the application has not been filed by the General Secretary of the applicant-Union. According to them, one Abdul Ghaffar is the General Secretary of the applicant-Union, whereas the application has been filed by Muhammad Ayub. With respect to the merits of the case they state that Muhammad Ayub, Noor Ahmed and Sabir Ali were absent from their duties without any intimation or leave, and Munir who eras on one month's leave from 15th May 1972, has not reported for duty on the expiry of his leave. Muhammad Ismail and Noor Muhammad were in their employment previously but left the service on their own accord in August 1971, and September 1970, respectively. As regards Rehmatullah, the respondents deny that he was ever in their employment.

In their rejoinder, the applicant-Union assert that the number of the employees of the respondents is more than 50, and Muhammad Ayub is the present General Secretary of the Union, who had been elected as such on 5th May 1972, after Abdul Ghaffar resigned from that past. They have produced the letter of resignation of Abdul Ghaffar and the intimation of the new office-bearers of the Union, including Muhammad Ayub, to the Registrar of Trade Unions. Therefore, in view of these pleadings of the parties, the question of the maintain ability of the application will have to be determined when the application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, comes up for hearing and the evidence is recorded on these points. For the present, it has to be seen whether there is a prima facie case for the prohibition of the alleged lock-out by the respondents. The applicant-Union have also produced registered letters addressed by the concerned workers to the respondents, requesting them to be taken hack ors duty, which are alleged to have been refused to be accepted by the respondents. Since the respondents admit that Muhammad Ayub, Noor Ahmad, Sabir Ali and Munir are their employees, but were absent from duty without leave. With respect to Muhammad Ismail, Noor Muhammad and Rehmatullah, the question whether they were employees o the respondents will be determined when the application under section 34 comes up for hearing. Therefore, the present applica tion is allowed to the extent that Muhammad Ay-db, Noor Ahmad, Sabir Ali and Muneer will be allowed by the respondents to resume their duties 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.