DECISION This appeal has been filed under section 37(3) of the I. R. O. against the award of the Labour Court passed on remand for the disposal of two demands. v 2. The respondent-Union has raised industrial dispute agitating 23 demands which were not accepted by the Management.
Conciliation proceedings failed and the failure certificate was issued. The matter was efcrred to the Labour Court under section 32(2) of the 1. R. O. The Labour Court after recording the evidence gave, the award whereby some of the demands were accepted in their entirety and some were accepted with modification and some were rejected. The appellant-Management filed the appeal against the demands which had been accepted. The respondent also filed the appeal against the order disallowing back benefits although re-instatement of the workers was ordered.
3. These appeals came up before me and were disposed of by my order dated 25tn January, 1975. I, however, remanded demand Nos. 1 and 23, to the Labour Court for disposal on merits, as no findings were given by the Labour Court with regard to these demands.
4. On remand no further evidence was led by the parties. The Labour Court, on hearing the arguments, passed the impugaed award rejecting both the demands on the ground that there was no evidence to prove the allegations. The Demand No. 1 relates to the re-instatement of the dismissed workers while Demand No. 23 relates to the determination of the lock-out of some other workers.
5. The present appeal has been filed by the Union challenging the finding of the Labour Court. I have heard the arguments and I am of the opinion that there is no force in this appeal. In these two demands allegations had been made that some workers were illegally dismissed and others had been illegally locked-out in order to victimize them for their Trade Union activities. The Labour Court on the assessm ent of the evidence came to the conclusion that there was not an iota of evidence of victimization and merely vague allegations had been made which were not enough to discharge the burden of proof. I have gone through the evidence on record and I entirely agree with the conclusion reached by the Labour Court. The learned Representative for the Union failed to point out that the view taken by the Labour Court suffered from any infirmity.
6. It was, however, urged that although demand No. 23 related to the allegations that some workers had been illegally locked-out but no such finding was given by the Labour Court. Even this plea is of no avail for the simple reason that it was the contention of the Management that those workers had also been dismissed from service and this was accepted by the Labour Court on the basis of the evidence which was produced. It was not a case of lock-out but dismissal. The fact that the workers had been dismissed was known to them. This had been admitted by one of the witnesses in the cross- examination. So the question of giving a finding whether there was any lock-out and whether it was legal or illegal did not arise.
7. Lastly, it was urged on behalf of the Union that the workers had neither been discharged nor any inquiry was held. In the first place no such plea was taken in the Charter of Demands. Secondly, Aqalmand, who was one of the dismissed workers, admitted that he had received the charge-sheet. With regard to inquiry he had first stated that no inquiry was held but during the course of examination he admitted that the enquiry was held against him. Even another witness Mohammad Azhar, admitted that he had received a letter intimating that the inquiry would be conducted on the date specified in the letter. Thus the plea taken by the learned Representative stands rejected by the workers themselves.
8. In the result the appeal is dismissed.
9. Before I part with this case I would like to state that it was pointed out to me that the Labour Court in the concluding para, of the award had observed that he was constrained to dismiss the application. The learned Representative on behalf of the Union thought that a confusion might arise that all the demands, which were previously allowed, were also rejected and, therefore, he requested for a clarification. In order to allay any apprehension 1 would like to make it clear that the rejection of the demands does not mean that the previous demands which were accepted, were rejected but what it exactly meant is that Demands Nos. 1 and 23 were dismissed. In other words Demands Nos. 1 and 23 were rejected.