1. S. Z. AHMED (CHAIRMAN).-This is an application by the Haroon Lace & General Mills Workers' Union under section 45 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, seeking prohibition of the continuance of the illegal lockout enforced against 65 workers, issue of temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, rule 1, C. P. C. to the respondent (employer) for hallowing those workers to resume duties immediately and for the payment of wages to those workers for the period of lockout. Respondent Haroon Lace & General Mills are the employers of the applicant-- Union. The facts of the case as presented by the applicant may be stated briefly as under.
2. The applicant is a Registered Trade Union in relation to the respondent. After the registration, the respondent started harassing the present General Secretary of the Union. On 1-12-69, the Union submitted a charter of demands to the respondent and in response the employer forwarded a charter of counter-demands to the Union on 13-12-69, which was received by the Union on 24-12-
69. As no settlement was reached between the parties, the Union served a 2' days' notice of strike on the respondent on 22-12-69. As a counter-measure, the employer served a notice of lock out dated 27-12-69. In pursuance of the notice, the Union struck work with effect fro 16-1-70 but the strike was ca. led off on 14-3-70 in consequence Lace of Government's intervention, which prohibited the continuance of the strike under section 32 of the Ordinance. In consequence of the dispute, proceedings were initiated in the Court by the respondent by their application No. 88/70 under section 34, 6/70 under section 45 and 4/70 under section 46 of the Ordinance, 1969. Similarly Applications Nos. 1/70, 2/70, 3/70 and 4/70, all under section 32 of the Ordinance was also filed in the 1st Labour Court. While all the aforesaid applications were still in the Court, the respondent discharged/dismissed and retrenched 65 - workers, some between 7-1-70 and 15-1-70, some 26-1- 70 and 27-1-70 and some between 9-4-70 and 16-4-70. The Union, therefore, filed an application No. 154/.70 under section 34 of the Ordinance in this Court on 16-5-70 complaining about the illegal and arbitrary discharge/dismissal and retrenchment of the 65 workers by the respondent and asked for the following reliefs :- -
(1) Declaration that the lockout of 65 workers was illegal.
(2) Direction to the respondent to re-instate 9 workers with full wages and other benefits.
(3) Direction to the respondent to re-instate 51 workers with full wages and benefits.
(4) Quashmentof the discharge/dismissal orders passed in respect of a number of workers.
3. On 4-6-1970, the Union also presented an application under section 45 of the Ordinance to the Court seeking the following relief in respect of the said dispute:---
(a) That in spit of prohibition of continuance of the strike by the Government, the respondent were rot taking back the 65 workers, discharged/dismissed and retrenched by them and, therefore, the Court should declare the lockout in respect of the 65 workers as illegal.
(b) TheCourt should issue a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, rule 1, C. P.-C. directing resumption of duty, by the involved workers.
(c) That the respondent should be directed to pay wages these workers for the period of lockout.
4. The defence taken by the respondent is that the action take against the involved workmen was not in execution of any policy of victimization on their part, but it was for various reason such as a need for retrenchment, misconduct of certain workmen and temporary termination of certain workers' employment who were no longer needed by them. The respondent denied that any lockout was resorted to by them because Though they had served a notice of lockout on the Union on 27-12-69 (effect from 19-1-70) the Union had frustrated it by voluntarily going strike on 16-1-70 and that no proceeding had followed regard to dialogue and conciliation is Consequence of the lock out notice.
5. Therefore, taking a broad and total view of the situation in the present case, the issues between the parties boil down to the following, for the purpose of action under section 45 of the-- 'Ordinance, namely:-
(1) Whether the action of the respondent in discharging M' dismissing and retrenching the workmen in question after S. the dispute has come into existence and proceedings had Ch been initiated before the Court amounted to a lookout of the workers.
(2) Whether the Union is entitled to the relief sought is their application under section 45.
6. As regards issue No. 1, -it is to be noted that the relief as regards a declaration that the discharge/dismissal and retrench--ment of the involved workers was an illegal. lockout, as sought in the present application, has also been sought in the main application under section 34 which is still pending. The respondents have taken a plea that no illegality was committed by them in discharging/dismissing or retrenching the workers involved during the pendency of the proceedings arising from dispute because the inherent right of the employer to terminate services of his workmen is not fettered by the fact of the pendency of proceedings in a Labour Court so long as the employer terminate the worker's employment in accordance with the terms and contract of the employment and within the limits as prescribed by the law and further that the dismissal or removal of the workers, whether proper or improper, does not amount to lockout. To me, it appears that this question whether the discharge/dismissal or retrenchment of the 65 workers involved in this case amounted to an illegal lockout or not is one wnu:h cannot be decided in disposing of this application and the proper proceeding in which this question will need determina--tion are those' initiated by the union under section 34 of the Ordinance and which are still pending adjudication.
7. Any attempt. to decide this question, at this stage would amount to prejudging the question which still awaits a decision in the pending proceedings under section 34 of the Ordinance. The propriety of deciding an issue of this kind in the course of proceedings under section 45 of the Ordinance was considered by the High Court of West Pakistan Karachi Bench in Appeal No. 35/67 and their Lordships were of the view that when a common issue is raised in two applications simultaneously (in that case one under section 20 and the other under section 30 of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959), it is improper to decide the applications separately: In the present case, as already stated above the issues as regards the illegality or otherwise of the alleged lockout against the 65 workers is also an issue in the pending application under section 34 -and, therefore, it would be improper to undertake any determination of this issue at the present stage in deciding this application. Apart from that, even on the assumption that these workers were illegally lockout by the respondent, the situation arising from their having been lockout has not caused nor is likely to cause any such grave consequences effecting the public or the workers themselves as might warrant their immediate return work- under the orders of this Court. The interest of the workers will not be harmed by their remaining out of work in so far as their employment under the respondent is concerned, because if ultimately as decision in the proceedings under section 34 of the Ordinance goes in their favour; they would be entitled to the restoration of alt financial and services benefits, permissible to them under the law.
8. The result, therefore, is that no case for the urgent relief sought by the Union in this application has been made out by it and accordingly the application is dismissed. The question as regards the existence and nature of the alleged lockout by the respondent, as raised in this application, will be decided in dealing with the application under section 34 of the Ordinance, which is awaiting disposal by this Court.
9. Announced in open Court.