Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. RI‑69 of 1982, heard on 7th March, 1982.

‑‑ Ss. 28, 34 & 43‑Closure of Mills ‑ Workers Union making application under S. 34 for issuance of direction to management to lift alleged lock‑out‑No industrial dispute pending‑ Electricity connection cut off because of non‑payment of bills due to losses and financial position ‑ Management compelled to close Mills dismissal of application of workers union by Labour Court, in circumstances, upheld by Appellate Tribunal.

Malik Muhammad Asghar for Appellant.

Date of hearing : 7th March, 1982.

This appeal arises from the decision, dated 1st December, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi, whereby the application of the appellant given under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for issuing direction to the respondent to lift illegal lock‑out was dismissed.

2. The case of the appellant is that on Ist July, 1980 the respondent affected an illegal lock‑out in contravention of the provisions of sections 26, 28 and 43 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 in order to deprive the workers of their right, inasmuch as certain demands were raised. The case of the respondent on the contrary was that the mills was running at loss with the result that the electric bills worth Rs. 10 lakhs could not be paid, as a result of which electricity connections were cut off by WAPDA and under these circumstances the management was compelled to close down the mills and lay‑of the workers. In support of the application Master Abdur Rashid, President of the appellant‑Union appeared as P. W. 1. He spoke of some previous settlements arrived at between the parties and produced their certified copies, which are Exhs. P. 2 to P. 7. He further stated that new demand notice was made deman ding the rights which had been previously allowed by the management, but the management refused and instead affected an illegal lock‑out. In cross‑examination he admitted that settlements Exhs. P. 6 to P. 7 were in force till 31st December, 1979 and that thereafter, no fresh demand notice was served by him or by Zardad, General Secretary of the Union. Since on the expiry of the previous settlement, no further demand notice was given, this allegation of the appellant that in order to be saved from the new demands, the workers were locked‑out. Since no new demand was made, no industrial dispute was pending. P. W. 1 denied the sugges tion that the mills had suffered any losses but admitted that electricity was disconnected by WAPDA since electricity bills were not paid but he added that according to preplanned scheme, electricity bills were intentionally not paid inviting disconnection of electric 'energy. The case of the respondent was closed, therefore, no evidence could be produced on his behalf. Since it does not stand proved that actually the appellant had raised any industrial dispute making any demands, the very motive put forward by the appellant for lock‑out stood disproved. There appears to be no reason why the respondent should have closed the factory when there was no demand. In the absence of any evidence of the motive, the stand taken by the respondent is to be accepted that on account of losses, the electricity bills of some months were not paid resulting in disconnection of the electricity. Since the electricity was disconnected the mills .was not in a position to run. The Management, in these circumstances, therefore, was compelled to close it. The order of the learned lower Court, therefore, appears to be correct. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed In limine.

A.E. Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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