1. HIDAYAT HUSSAIN (CHAIRMAN).-Applicant Abdul Waheed and other 16 workers of the respondent- Management have filed 17 applications under section 34 of I. R. O., 1969 against the termination of their services by the respondents. Through this application under section 45, applicant Abdul Waheed wants this Court to hold that the termination is merely a cloak to cover an illegal lock-out, and prohibited the continuance of the lock-out. A notice of this application was served on the respondent. Syed Zamirul Hassan appears for them. Mr. Saeed Pasha Lodhi for the applicants contends as follows :-
(a) A Union was formed in the establishment and the workers applied for its registration on 22-10- 1971. As soon as the Union was formed the Management took steps to do away with the office- bearers of the union and to achieve that end the office-bearers were transferred from one shift to the other and then that shift was closed on 30th October 1971.
(b) In terms of Standing Order 6, the Management was required to give one month's notice to the workers before the closing of the shift but the Management has failed to do that in this case.
2. Syed Zamirul Hassan has following points to make :-
(a) There is no collective bargaining agent in the establishment and, therefore, individual applicant Abdul Waheed cannot file application under section 45, on behalf of other workers.
(b) This is a case of termination simpliciter and the Manage--ment did not know about the information and the registration of the Union.
(c) Instead of giving one month's notice the Management has given one month's notice pay to the workers. Many workers have taken their dues.
(d) There is no industrial dispute.
3. Contention of Syed Zamirul Hasan that an individual worker cannot come against the lock-out is not correct. It is only in a case of application und8r section 34 that the application has to be filed by the individual worker or by the collective bargaining agent. In the case of lock-out any worker may bring to the notice of this Court the existence of an illegal lock-out and then it is for this Court to proceed in the matter. The contention of Syed Zamirul Hasan that this lock-out, if any, did not take place in pursuance of any industrial dispute, also does not carry any weight. It is the allegation of the workers that the termination resulted on account of their formation of Union.
4. Term industrial dispute has been defined in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, as under:- "'Industrial dispute' means any dispute or difference between employer and employers or between employers and workmen or between workman and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of, employment or the conditions of work of any person."
5. What is, therefore, necessary to find out whether there is any industrial dispute or not, is to see if there was any difference or opinion between the Management and the workers. In this case the alleged termination has come about soon after the workers formed their Union and applied for registration and this indicates difference of opinion between them on 'formation of Union.
6. Mr. Saeed Pasha Lodhi is correct in saying that before closing the shift it was necessary for the Management to give one month's n6tice to the workers of the shift. This has not been done in this case.
7. Mr. Shaukat Ali A. Nanji, the learned Member of this Court points to the probability that the workers might have formed this Union just to avoid the effects of termination. I asked Syed Zamirul Hasan to tell us as to when the closure of the shift was contemplated. Manager. Muhammad Siddique of the respon--dents tells us that in fact they are expecting orders and it was for that reason that they did not take any action for the closure of the shift earlier. He adds that the pending orders have been complied with by about 8th or 10th of October 1971, and they were expecting fresh orders which did not come within a period of fortnight. He further adds that the orders are expected any day.
8. In the circumstances of this case it appears that the termina--tion has been resorted to cover the illegal closing of work to these 17 applicants. So far as these workers are concerned there is, therefore, an illegal lock-out. Continuance of this lock-out is prohibited forthwith.