1. KHUDA BAKHSH A. KAZI (CHAIRMAN)--On 9th September 1972 the above-named ;applicants filed this application under section 34-of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 against the above- named respondents in this Court. In the said application it was prayed that the lay-off which was going to be effected from 12th September 1972 for a period of 14 days and then again for a period of 14 days more be declared as Illegal and against the natural justice. In the alternative it was prayed that if the lay off Is effected then the Court may direct the respondent-Company to pay wages for the entire period of lay-off. This application was registered as 367/72.
2. Alongwith the above-said application an application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. was made on behalf of the applicants wherein they had prayed that the respondent be res--trained from declaring the lay-off of the workers as per list attached to the application from 12th September 1972 till the disposal of the application under section 34 of the I. R. O., 1969. This applica- -tion was supported by an affidavit of Mr. Qamar Qureshi, General Secretary of the Workers' Union.
3. Since this application was presented on 9th September 1972 nearly at the close of the office hours and 10th and 11th of Sep--tember 1.972 being holidays, and looking to the urgency of the matter, an order maintaining status quo was passed by this Court. The matter was put down far hearing on 12th Septem--ber 1972.
4. On 12th September 1,972 the Representative (Advocate) of the applicant remained absent for the entire day although applicant himself was present. The learned Representative of the res-- pondents filed counter-affidavit alongwith 13 documents in support of their case whereby the had tried to show that the lay-off was resorted to under the circumstances beyond their control.
5. I then heard the learned Representative of the respondent at a very great length.
6. I put down the matter to 13th September 1972 (today) so that the Representative for the applicants could argue out his case.
7. An affidavit of Mr. Qamar Qureshi, General Secretary of the workers' Union has been filed in rejoinder. I have also heard Mr. Muhammad Shafiq Qureshi, the learned Representative for the applicants.
8. Before going further it is very necessary to reproduce Standing Order I1 (1) and (3) of the Schedule to the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, which ran as follows: - "Section 11(1).-The employer may, at any time, in the event of fire, catastrophe, break-down of machinery or stoppage of power supply, epidemics, civil commotion or other cause beyond his control, stop any section or sections of the establishment, wholly or partially, for any period or periods without notice.
9. Section 11(3).-In cases where workmen are laid off on account of failure of plant or a temporary curtailment of production, they shall be pall by the employer an amount equal to one-half of their daily wages during the first seven days of lay-off, and one-third of their daily wages during the following seven days as compensation. When, however, the workmen have to be laid off for an indefinite period beyond the above-mentioned fourteen days, their services may be terminated after giving them due notice or pay in you thereof."
10. In this case the respondents assert that the intended lay-off was quite legal, proper and bona fide and was in accordance with the provisions of law. The respondents are manufacturer of Jerrican, which are exclusively made for to be Ministry of Defence with specific raw material under the contract. Previously the raw material i.e. Deep Drawing C. R. C. A. M. S. Sheets requir--ed for manufacturing of Jerrican could be Imported under the bonus. However under the new Import policy the same could be imported only under tied sources namely, U.S. Aid for which the Government of Pakistan has not yet made necessary announ--cement and there was no definite indication to when such Import from tied sources would be allowed. In. the counter- affidavit all allegations made against the respondents have been vehemently denied.
11. In the affidavit in rejoinder it is asserted that the intended lay-off was a mala fide one.
12. I have considered all aspects of the case. I have read' the various affidavits filed by the respective parties and pursued the documents produced. I have also considered the arguments advanced by the learned Representatives of the parties. As a matter of fact the applicants have filed an application under section 34 of the Ordinance praying for declaration of the lay-off, which was going to be effected from 12th September 1972, to be illegal. In case the applicants succeed, they will be entitled to all their dues. At the moment without going into the merits of the case, I find that in case temporary injunction is granted and finally the applicants do not succeed the respondents would suffer an irreparable loss. Even the balance of convenience is in favour of the respondents.
13. Consequently I do not find thin a fit case, which a temporary injunction be granted. Accordingly I vacate the order of status quo passed by this Court on 9th September 197 and dismiss application under- Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2; C. P. C. without coats.