1. HIDAYAT HUSSAIN (CHAIRMAN): The workman in the appli--cation claimed to be in the permanent employ of the respondents. It is their case that they formed the Union on 17th July 1971 and intimated the respondents about it per telegram. The telegram was followed by a letter containing the details of the office-bearers of the Union. It is the allegation of the Appli--cant that on 23rd July 1971, having received this letter Manager Abdul Qayum of the respondents summoned the President of the Union and advised him to refrain from forming the Union and on 26th July 1971 when the workers went to the factory the gates of the factory were closed on them. 25th July 1971 was a Sunday. The workmen finding themselves locked-out brought the matter to the notice of the Assistant Director, Labour Welfare who then arranged a meeting on 27th July 1971. In that meeting according to the applicant the Assistant Director, Labour Welfare was able to persuade the Management to take the workers back on work and consequently the work--men resumed work on 28th July 1971. On 2nd August 1971. According to the applicant the Manager refused work to workmen Nisar Ahmad, Khuda Dad, Akhlaq Ahmad, Tasleem Ahmad the office-bearers of this Union and Muhammad Yunes. The Union according to the applicant was registered on 31st July 1971, and the certificate of registration was issued on 3rd August 1971. On 3rd August 1971, the Union sent notice under section 26 of I. R. O , 1969. After the receipt of the notice the Manager of the respondents summoned the applicant and required him to withdraw the notice given under section 25 of I. R. O., 1969. The Union did not agree to the withdrawal of the notice. On this the Manager did not allow workmen Latif Ahmad, Ansar Hussain, Muhammad Nawaz and Rehan Ahmad to work. The workmen went to work on 6th August 1971, again but when the Management refused the workmen to take them back on work they reported the matter to the Labour Directorate.
2. According to the applicant the workmen have been refused work in order that they may be forced not to pursue their Trade Union activities. In this application they have prayed for the prohibition of the continuance of the lock-out. A notice of the application was served on the respondents. Mr. S. M. Sayeed appears for the respondents.
3. The contentions of Mr. Fayyaz Muhammad Azad who appears for the applicant are as follows :-
(a) The termination is aimed at victimising the workmen for their lawful Trade Union activities and after terminating the services of these 14 workmen the Management recruited about 14 or 15 workers.
(b) There is no letter of appointment of these workers to show that they were employed on a particular work of tem--porary nature.
4. Mr. S. M. Saeed for the respondents replies as follows :-
(a) All these workmen are temporary having less than three months' service to their credit.
(b) It is correct that the Management employed stew hands but it was for a new contract.
(c) The workman were employed for a particular contract but when they were asked to sign on the prescribed form of appointment in the month of July these workmen refused to sign those forms.
(d) The letters of termination were sent by post to the workmen because the workmen refused to take termination letter.
(e) This is not a case of lock-out. It is a simple termination of services on account of efflux of work.
(f) Once the services of workmen are terminated there is no question of lock-out.
5. It appears to this Court that the workmen were refused work after the Management came to know about the formation of the Union. It is the case of the Management itself that these workmen were employed in May or June 1971 but the Manage--ment did not issue any appointment letter to the workmen.
6. Instead the workmen ware asked to sign on the prescribed form for their appointment in the month of July. This point, prima facie, leads to the conclusion that this step was taken after the Union was formed in the establishment. If the services of the workmen had been terminated before the formation of the Union it might have led us to hold that the termination was pure and simple but in the circum--stances of this case the termination appears to have been resorted to simply to cover unlawful refusal of work to the workmen. In the absence of letters of appointment at this stage we cannot say that these workmen were employed for any work of temporary nature. In the face of the admission of the Management that they recruited new hands we feel that there was sufficient work in the factory. The closure of work in this case appears to be to force the workmen to accept the demand of the Management not to pursue the Trade Union activities. It is therefore, a case of lock- out. I will, therefore, prohibit the continuance of the lock-out.
7. The contention of Mr. S. M. Saeed that once the services of the workmen are terminated there is no question of lock-out might have prevailed if the termination had been bona fide. Once we come to the opinion that the termination had been resorted to only as a cloak to cover illegal at we cannot agree with Mr. S. M. Saeed on this point.
8. Mr. Shaukatali A. Nanji the learned member of this Court feels that the determination of this application under section 45 might have been postponed until the decision of application under section 34 of I. R. O., 1969. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.