1. HIDAYAT HUSSAIN (CHAIRMAN).-----The applicant-Union has filed an application under section 34 of the I. R. O., 1969, for the enforcement of the award given by the Second Sind Labour Court, Karachi in Industrial Dispute No. 4/71 under section 32 of I. R. O. According to the applicants the respondents adopted tactics to do away with that award and to achieve that end they have resorted to illegal lock-out under the cloak of lay-of for a period of to and a half months. Through this application under section 45 of the I. R. O., 1969, therefore, the applicants pray that this lock-out may be declared illegal. A notice of this application was served on the respondents. Mr. Izzat Puri appears for them.
2. Mr. Saeed Pasha Lodhi appears for the applicants and con--tends as follows :-
(a) Lay-of cannot be resorted to by the hotels.
(b) No cause whatsoever has been shown for laying-of the workers.
(c) The Management did not fulful the terms of the award and when the workers pressed for its enforcement they were denied work under the cloak of lay-of.
3. Mr. Izzat Puri replies as follows :-
(a) Most of the office-bearers of the Union have left the Management and, therefore, the Union is not properly consti--tuted.
(b) This is a case of lay-of for a definite period.
(c) There is no provision in law to disclose the cause for which lay-of is resorted to.
(d) If the workers felt that the award had not been implemented they could have proceeded according to law.
(e) This is not lock-out in any case From the perusal of the reply of the respondents and their affidavit I find that no cause has been shown for which the Management might have laid-of the workers. It is alleged that the Management had to carry on urgent repairs. The urgent repairs cannot be deemed to be beyond the control of the Management. It is a matter on the record of these Courts that the parties have dispute between them and one such dispute ended in the award referred to above. This Court is of the opinion that the place of work has been closed to these workers in order to coerce them not be pursue the enforcement of the award given by the Second Sind Labour Court and thus the lock-out is in existence. I prohibit the continuance of the lay-of which is cloak to cover the lock-out.
4. Mr. Shaukat Ali A. Nanji the learned Member of this Court points out that the applicant-Union has not given the list of workers who according to him have been locked-out. Let this list be filed today with a copy to the respondents.
5. Mr. Lodhi has submitted the list according to which there were 36 workers on the roll of the Management at the the of lay-of. The reply to the list has been tiled by one Shareef to the effect that only 8 workers are on the list of the Management. This reply was presented by Mr. Puri, while the matter was being heard yesterday. Mr. Puri denied that the Management had terminated the services of any workers or that any worker had tendered resignation during this period. In fact in reply to the application it was stated on behalf of the Management that the Management offered earned wages to all the workers except 8 workers and this clearly shows that there were more than 8 workers at least on 8th November 1971, and hence the statement on behalf of the Management that there were only 8 workers on the roll of the Management on 21st October 1971 is false. To this Court it appears that the list filed by Mr. Lodhi is correct. The order passed yesterday will operate in the case of the workers shown in the list filed by Mr. Lodhi.