1. AWARD This is an application by Five Representatives of the Workmen of Municipal Committee, Multan, under section 20 of the Indus--trial Disputes Ordinance, 1959, alleging that the Management has illegally locked-out fifty five workmen, and that the lock-out was in existence, when industrial dispute under section 5(5) of the Ordinance was filed in this Court, on 7-1-68. It is prayed that a prohibitory order may be issued to the Management to discontinue the illegal lock-out.
2. In reply to the application, the Management has raised several preliminary objections. However, for the disposal of this application, I do not feel called upon to decide them. On facts, the case of the Management is, that it had created 100 new posts and appointed 60 sweepers, 20 handcartmen and 20 water---carriers provisionally and temporarily in anticipation of the sanction of the Controlling Authority. The Controlling Authority disallowed the creation of these posts? However, on a further representation made by the Committee only the creation of 30 posts of sweepers, 10 handcartmen and 10 water--carriers was allowed, whereupon out of the 60 sweepers, 20 handcartmen and 20 water-carriers, who had been provisionally and temporarily appointed, 30 sweepers, 10 handcartmen and 10 water-carriers were discharged on 7-12-1967. It was further alleged that some of the discharged employees, in connivance with a few others, served a strike notice on the Municipal Committee on 8-12-ti7. Thus no workman was locked out during the pendency of conciliation proceedings.
3. In the replication filed by the petitioners, they have alleged that the workmen were locked-out on 9-12-67, during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings. It was denied that they had been discharged from service on 7-12-67.
4. The sole question that arises for determination is, whether the Municipal Committee locked-out some of its workmen on n 9-12-1967 as alleged. 'The term `lock-out' has been defined as under:- "`Lock-out' means the closing of a place of employment or part of such place, or the suspension, wholly or partly, of n work by an employer, or refusal, absolute or conditional by an employer to continue to employ any number of persons employed by him, where such closing, suspension or refusal occurs in connection with an industrial dispute, or is intended for the purpose of compelling persons employed to accept certain terms or conditions of, or affecting employment."
5. The definition shows that the closure or suspension: of work or refuse to employ them workmen must occur in connection RPM, an industrial dispute, or is intended for the purpose of compelling persons employed to accept certain terms or conditions effecting their employment. Section 20 of the Ordinance reads:-- "Where a strike or lock-out in pursuance of an industrial dispute has already commenced and is in existence at the time of the application to the Court under subsection (5) tai section 5 for adjudication of the dispute, the Court may, by order, prohibit the continuance of the strike or lock- out in connection with such dispute."
6. It is to be determined, whether the services of the workmen were dispensed with on 7-12-67 because the controlling authority refused to sanction their continuance or they were locked-out on 9.12-67. Onus lay very heavy on the petitioners to establish their case. 'I hey have led no cogent evidence. Muhammad Hanif, Sweeper of the Committee appearing as P. W. 1, deposed that 55 workmen were locked-out by the Management on 9.12-67, because they had made certain demands including demand for raising of wages and payment of house rent allowance. Manna P.
7. W. 2, deposed that the strike notice was given to the Management on the 8th of December 1967; and on the following day and subsequently on the 10th and 11th of December 1967, about 30 to 40 workmen were locked-out. The contention of these witnesses is that the workers, who are alleged to have been locked-out, were permanent employees of the Municipal Committee. However, when cross-examined Manna had to admit, that he was getting his salary at the rate of Rs. 2 per day. He also deposed :- "All the sweepers were paid at the rate of Rs. 2 per day."
8. Therefore; the contention of the petitioners that permanent workmen have been locked-out does not appear to be correct. In rebuttal the respondent-Committee has examined Kh. Abdul Haleem, Chief Sanitary Inspector (R. W. 1). ' He deposed that the Municipal Committee recruiters 60 sweepers, 20 handcartmen and 20 water-carriers on the 1st of July 1967, subject to the approval for their retention in service, by the Commissioner, the Controlling Authority. Letter Exh. R. 2 was sent to the Commissioner, who was, requested to agree to the provision made for the engagement of 60 sweepers, 20 handcartmen and 20 watter-carriers, as provided in the budget estimates for the year 1967-68. The Commissioner did not agree, as would appear from letter Exh. R.
3. The order of the Commissioner is to the effect that new provisions for 60 sweepers; 20':cartmen, and 20 warter- carriers had been disallowed. When the committee was faced with this situation, it again approached the Commis--sioner with the following request as contained in letter Exh. R. 4:- "Owing to the development of new abadies the additional conservancy staff consisting of 60 sweepers, 20 cartmen and 20 watter-carriers is actually needed and may kindly be approved."
9. When this request was considered by the Commissioner he agreed to the retention of 30 sweepers, 10 handcartmen and 10 wafer-carriers as is evident from letter Exh. R.
5. After tile receipt of this letter, its copy was endorsed to the Municipal Medical Officer of Health with the remark that the additional conservancy staff employed over and above the strength sanc--tioned by the Commissioner, Multan Division, may be discharged immediately. This endorsement is dated 6th of December 1967. Thus on. the following day according to Kh. Abdul Haleem, the services of 30 sweepers, 10 handcartmen and 10 water-carriers were dispensed with, and they were paid up to that date. , The payment made to them was regularised by writing letter Exb. R. 6 to the Commissioners, requesting him. Necessary sanction for the retention of 30 sweepers, 10 cartmen and 10 water-carriers, over and above the sanction strength, from 1-7-1967 to..7-12:1967 may kindly be accorded to regularise the matter.
10. The Commissioner approved of the action taken by the Committee as is evident from his letter Exh.
11. R. '7. Thus it is clear from the documentary evidence that 50 workmen were retrenched on 7-2-1967, when no industrial dispute was pending or even existed between the workmen and the Management. According the evidence led by the petitioners, they met at about 6-30 or 7 P.M. on 7- 12-1967 and chose five Representatives to serve strike notice on the Management. This undoubtedly was done after the services of the aforementioned workmen had been dispensed with. They were discharged at 4-00 p.m. on 7-12-1967 as stated by Kh. Abdul Haleem. There is no cogent rebuttal to his statement.
12. In view of the evidence led by the parties, I am of the view, that 50 employees of the Municipal Committee were terminated on 7-12-1967 and were not locked-out because their termination did not occur in connection with an industrial dispute, nor with a view to compel them to accept certain terms and conditions effecting their employment. I am unable to agree with the contention of the petitioners that they were locked-out on 9-12-1967. They were already out of job, when they met on the evening of 7-12-1967 to serve strike notice on the Management. They action was probably taken by them out a case under section 20 of the Ordinance. However, for the reason stated above, I am satisfied, that there has been no lock-out consequently the application is dismissed.