1. Reply has been filed by the Management. Workers have not filed any reply as they support the report and complaint, submitted by the Reporting officer. The Management has vehemently opposed the report of the Reporting officer. Certain preliminary objections nave been raised. Since the request under section 46-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 regarding the lifting of the alleged illegal lock-out is to be disposed of first I, required the parties to address the Court in this behalf first. No evidence has, however, been produced but the parties have been heard at length. It is alleged in the report that the Assistant Collector, Central Excise and Land Custom, Government of Pakistan, conducted raids on the factory to check evasion of excise duty. This action was resented by the Management of the factory and thereupon the Management in league with the other employers, having factories in the area declared an illegal lock-out in the factory on 27 August 1974 which was still continuing. It has been further alleged in the report that the workers have been illegally restrained from attending to their jobs, the Reporting Officer made an inquiry on the spot and confirmed that the employer has resorted to an illegal lock-out which resulted in the deprivation of the legitimate right of the workers, employed in the factory.
2. The answering respondent i.e. The Management has raised certain preliminary objections so far as the disposal of the request to take action under section 46 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is concerned. His objections are: -
(a) Answering respondent is not the employer;
(b) There is legally no lock-out as envisaged in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1964; andth
(c) On account of number of workers employed in the factory being much less than ten, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is not applicable and this Court has no jurisdiction.
3. It is noteworthy that the employer has not denied the fact that he has closed the factory for the the being and that the workers are not being allowed to attend to their jobs and to earn their gages.
4. As regards objection that the answering respondent is not employer, it may be observed that the present report is directed against the Management of the factory concerned and the prohibitory under, if issued by, the Court shall be binding on the Management whoever, he or they may be. He cannot loose sight of the fact that in certain cases the licence for running a factory is obtained in one name or in the name of a fictitious person but the actual person running the factory is someone else. The order issued in the case shall be binding on the person who is actually managing the affairs of the factory and he in fact, s the person who is answering respondent in the case.
5. So far as the plea that there is no illegal lock-out as envisaged in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is concerned, reference may be made to the definition of the expression ---Illegal lock out--- as contained in section 2(xi) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1.969. According to this definition ---illegal lock-out--- means a lock-out declared, commenced or continued otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance. In. The circumstances of the under-consideration case obviously the factor has been closed and the workers Five been deprived of attending to their jobs without having regard to the provisions of sections 26 to 31 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 This action of the respondent (Management) is, therefore, certainly illegal. It is, however, vehemently argued on behalf of the Management, that whatever may be the action in this case it is not a lock-out within the meaning of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, inasmuch as, case of a lock-out existence of an industrial dispute is necessary. In this case there is no industrial dispute, therefore, the action of the Management of closing the factory and not allowing the workers to attend to their jobs does not amount to lock-out. I find little force in this contention of the Management. It is not necessary that an industrial dispute between the Management and the workers should be an old one before a lock-out is declared. The mere fact that the Management has stopped running of the factory and thereby have resorted to an action which amounts to economic squeezing of the workers and as they have been deprived of A their wages, this amounts to an industrial dispute between the Management and the workers. The Management has resorted to this action in utter dis--regard of the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, it would therefore, appear to be an illegal lock-out.
6. As regards the Management's plea that in view of the less number of workers, employed in the factory, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is not applicable and this Court lacks jurisdiction, it is observed that the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 extends to whole of the Pakistan. It applies in every case where a worker is employed in an industry. Its application is only pro--hibited in case of those industries which have been enumerated in subsection (3) of section 1 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The number of workers employed in an industry or establishment has hardly any relevancy for invoking the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. There may be an illegal lock-out in an establishment or industry however, small it may be. Arguments advanced in this behalf on behalf of the Management are, therefore, not sustainable.
7. In the light what has been said above I conclude that the Management, in this case appears to have resorted to illegal lock-out as reported by the Assis--tant Director, Labour Welfare, Lyallpur. I, therefore, order that the lock-out being resorted to by the Management be lifted immediately.
8. As regards the complaint of the Reporting Officer that the Management be dealt with for the commission of offence, punishable under section 57(ii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, case shall come up for recording of complainant's statement and preliminary evidence on 8th October 1974.