1. MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-This is an application under section 45 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance, preceded by the original application under section 34 of the said Ordinance.
2. The case of the first party is that they are a registered Trade Union and they, entered into an agreement with the, other side for two years, on 24-5-68 as to the terms and conditions of service of the employees of the said establishment. It was laid down in the agreement as follows: "This agreement shall come into force on 1st April 1968 and remain valid until' 31st March 1970"
3. The company further undertook, to pay bonus -equivalent to one month's basic wages to the employees arid of 'this, bonus for 15 days will, if so requested, by the Union, be paid before the Eid- ul-Fitr and the balance at the end of the financial year of the Company. The balance of the bonus due to the first party is to be paid by the first week of April 1970. The first party is the bargaining agent of the employees and they placed a fresh charter of demands to the second patty on 16-i- 1970 for nest agreement, and this was duly acknowledged by the second party on 21-1-1970: The first party and the second party sat for bi-partite negotiation under section.21 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance on different dates starting from 26-1-1970. But -on 11-2-1970 the second party intimated the first party to withdraw the charter of demands and threatened with serving lock-out notice -in, case of a failure. The first party informed the second partly the since the charter of demands related to fresh agreement on expiry of the current agreement, on 1st April 1970, the discussion could be deferred till that date. The second party wilfully and deliberately in order to coerce the first party served a notice of lock-out on 7-3-1970 declaring that they would commence a lock-out with effect from 28-3-70. The first party informed the second party that the notice of lock-out was illegal as it contravenes the agreement. Tri-partite conciliation proceeding took place in the office of the Assistant Director of Labour' but, it failed due to the obstinacy of the second party. Thereafter the first party requested the second party and the Joint Director of Labour, Dacca Division for arbitration. But the second party is not interested in arbitration even. But they wanted to lock-out the factory in question. Thereafter it has been informed that the second party actually commenced and continued the lock-out with effect from 28-3-1970. In their application under section 45 of the Ordinance the first party prayed that the lock-out commenced and continued by the second party with effect from 28-3-1970 be prohibited on the above grounds.
4. The second party filed a written statement-cum-written objection wherein it has been stated, inter alia, that the applications under sections 34 and 45 'of the Ordinance are not maintainable and that the Court 'is not properly constituted. It' was further stated that the first party raised a charter of demands on 16-1-1970 in violation of the existing agreement as most of the demands were covered by the said agreement. As they have repudiated the settlement by raising the demands, the second party called upon them to call back their demands. But they did not do so, and hence in a legal manner the, second party submitted notice according to the legal procedure and commenced a lockout with effect from 28-3-1970.
5. Point for determination is whether there is a prima facie case for prohibiting the lock-out commenced and continued by the, second party as alleged by the first party. It is admitted by both the. parties that there is an agreement subsisting between the two parties till 31w3-1970.
6. According to section 40 of the Ordinance this agreement could have continued for another 2 months that is, up to 31st of May 1970. Dependent on the relationship between the two parties the same agreement could have proceeded according to the provisions of 'law for arriving at a fresh settlement if any. Under normal circumstances it could be presumed that there should not have been raised any industrial dispute. But in the present case it appears that the first party raised an industrial dispute by placing a charter of demands to the second party on 16-1-1970 that is, within the pendency of the said agreement.They have proceeded however, according to the provisions of 'the Ordinance. They served the charter of demands under section 26 and thereafter a bi-lateral negotiation, continued and thereafter the second party holds that they could, not fulfil all the demands of the other party, at least on one point with regard to the dismissal of workers. This became a prestige - issue, as it appears. Then the second party served the notice of lock-out and in pursuance, of the notice they silly commenced and continued the lockout with effect from 28-3- 1970. Both parties have fallen back on the agreement as their source of strength. The first party's case is that the second party did not abide by the terms and condition of the agreement by serving the lock-out notice. The second party plea is that in order to enforce the agreement they have-- resorted to this lock-out. So far as the case of the first party is concerned, I find nothing illegal. Seeing the provision of the agreement I find that only a service of notice of strike or lock-out can be prohibited under section 44 or a strike could be prohibited under section 45 of the Ordinance. There is no clause in the said agreement prohibiting a bi-lateral discussion between the parties during the pendency of this agreement. Agreement only meant that during its pendency no fresh charter of demands could be forced. But there is no prohibition in the law against mutual discussion. In the present case admittedly a mutual discussion was going on between the two parties regarding a Garter of demands of the first party. As this does not appear i to be illegal, the second party could not have resorted to a lock-out by serving notice under section 28 and resort to actual flock-out under section 32 while this bi-lateral talks were going on. While they are the upholder of the agreement, the second party could not have acted as the breaker of the agreement. On the other hand, we find that the first party even agreed to defer the: talks after 31st of March 1970. In that case, even the slight doubt that they could not have even raised the charter of demands would not have remained.
7. In view of all these considerations I find that the first party ---was not doing anything illegal under the Ordinance as against which the second party claimed to have a right. In fact in the present case the second party claimed to have a right of lock-out to enforce the agreement. Nothing has occurred from the side of the first party to disturb or dishonour the agreement. Bud he workers of the second party 'were working quite peacefully); while the negotiations were going on, it is admitted. So by presuming or apprehending that the first party would do something illegal, or in contravention of the agreement, the second party should not have done anything illegal straightway.
8. In view of this I find that this lock-out is unjustified and i should be prohibited. Member Mr. Anisuddin Khan who is present in Court has agreed with me on this point. The other law points have not been pressed in this Court.
9. Hence it is-- Ordered that the lock-out commenced and continued by the second party in the premises of Pakistan Pharmaceutical Industry Limited, Tongi, Dacca; be prohibited and the, lockout be withdrawn forthwith.