1. DECISION MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-This is an application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) filed by 4 workers on behalf of their Trade Union.
2. The application has been later amended by one Anwar Hussain, slid to be the Secretary of the Union which is alleged to be registered but definitely not recognized as collective bargaining agent.
3. Now, an individual worker can file an appli--cation in this Court for enforcement of right which has been guaranteed. 'The present application purports to show that the present worker along With others had been working under the second party quad peacefully till all of a sudden the employer chose to lock up the establishment as against him and some others without any previous notice or in compliance with the provisions of the Ordinance which have been guaranteed by the present Ordinance, As he has been suffering financially duo to this lock-out against his employment, he has preferred this application for withdrawal of the lock-out under section 34 read with section 44 of the Ordinance.
4. The second party has entered into appearance by filing a written objection in which it was stated that the application is sot maintainable on the ground that this section purported to open the door to the infringement of other laws except the Ordinance itself. It has been denied that there was any lock-out. On the other hand, it was stated that this worker along with some unruly workers attacked the second party's estab--lishment and some workers actually employed resisted them in their nefarious acts. Thereafter these workers went away without any notice of their own volition and did not turn up for work. However, no action such as discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination of their services has been taken so far. The establishment is running as usual. So this application should be dismissed.
5. Point for determination is whether there is a lock-out in the establishment.
6. FINDINGS AND DECISION It appears from a perusal of the term `lock-out' as defined in section 2 of the Ordinance that any refusal to employ a particular worker or workers either absolutely or conditionally would amount to partial lock-out. The definition is as follows: "2. (xvi) `lock-out' means the closing of a place of employment or part of such place, or the suspension, wholly or partly, of work by an employer, or refusal, absolute of conditional, by an employer to continue to employ Pay number of workmen employed by him, where such closing, suspension or refusal occurs in connection with an industrial dispute or is intended for the purpose of compelling workmen employed to accept certain terms and conditions of or affecting employment."
7. On hearing the lawyers of the parties it appeared to its that though it has been claimed that the establishment is running as usual, this worker Anwar Hussain has been refused employment without assigning any reason. As admitted by the learned lawyer of the second party, this worker has neither been discharged nor dismissed nor retrenched nor his services had been terminated.
8. So this present refusal of employment to this worker amounts to lock-out as against his employment by the employer. It has also been admitted that no disciplinary action has been taken by the second party. So she second party has no good defence case as against the case of this individual worker who brought an allegation of illegal lock-out against the second party. It is also admitted in this particular case that the provisions for resorting to lock-out As defined fn the Ordinance have not been complied with by the second party. In fact, the second party denied any lookout in their establishment. I must state here that the ease of an individual worker would be treated at par if all other circumstances are same. So the net result is that we find that there is a partial nock-out in the second party's establishment as against this individual worker or any such worker who have been refused employment in similar circumstances. Therefore, this lock-out should be prohibited as it is against the provisions of law.
9. In the result, it is ordered that this application be allowed on contest and the award of the Court is that the second party be directed to call off the illegal lock-out at once in respect of this worker Anwar Hussain and allow him to resume his work within 3 (three) days from the date of passing this order. This order having been passed in Court in presence of the parties, it shall be presumed that the parties have been informed of the order formally. However, copies of the order may be supplied to the parties.
10. I have consulted the written opinion of the Members in arriving at this decision.