' This is a revision against the order dated 1-4-1977 of Punjab Labour Court, No, 4, Lyallpur.
2. Workers of Saleem & Company on 26-3-1977 made a complaint to the Assistant Director, Labour Welfare that the Management of Saleem & Company bad illegally commenced a lock-out. The Assistant Director, Labour Welfare visited the factory on the same day and found that the factory was locked-out and the workers were sitting outside the factory. He contacted Mr. Saleem, the employer who informed him that the electricity was cut off by the WAPDA Authorities due to overloading. After hold ng an inquiry, the Assistant Director, Labour Welfare came to the conclusion that it was an illegal lock-out. He then made a report to the Labour Court to that effect under section 46.A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 196). In spite of service the employer did not attend the Labour Court, which proceeded with the case ex parts against him, WAPDA Authorities were contacted and one Mohammad Tahir, Line Superintendent appeared on behalf of the Executive, Engineer, WAPDA. The Workers' Union at its instance handed over a test report to the Line Superintendent, whereby it was stated that some of the electricity has been disconnected so that there should not be any overloading in the consumption of the electricity. The Line Superintendent promised to restore the electric connection within 24 hours after making inspection at the spot. The Labour Court, thereupon, held that the employer had commenced an illegal lock-out and issued direction to him to lift the illegal lock-out within 24 hours.
3. Against the above decision, the petitioner has preferred this revision.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it was not lock-out as defined under the Ordinance and as such the Assistant Director Labour Welfare had no locus standl to make a report under section 46-A o Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, which reads as under :- 46-A. Procedure In cases of illegal strikes or lock-outs. - (1) Notwith standing anything contained in any other provision of this Ordinance or in any other law for the time being in force, an Officer of th Labour Department not below the rank of Assistant Director, Labou Welfare, hereinafter In this section referred to as the Officer, may mak enquiries in such manner as he may deem fit into an illegal strike o illegal lock-out in a factory and make a report to the Labour Court.
(2) After completing the enquiry the officer shall serve a notice on the employer and the collective bargaining agent or the registered Trade Union concerned with the dispute to appear before the Labour Court on a date to be fixed by that Court.
(3) The Labour Court, may within ten days following the day on which it receives a report under subsection (1), after considering the report and hearing such of the parties as appear before it order the strike to be called-off or the lock-out to be lifted.
(4) ..............
(5) ..
(6)..
(7).
(8) .
(9) ..
(10) ..
5. Illegal lock-jut is defined under section 2(xl) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 as under: "Illegal lock-out" means a lock-out declared, commenced or continued otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance.
6. Lock-out is defined under section 2(xvf) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 as under :- "Lock-out" means the closing of a place of employment or part of such place or the suspension, wholly or partly, of work by an employer, or refusal, absolute or conditional, by an employer to continue to employ any number of workmen employed by him where such closing, suspension or refusal occurs in connection with an industrial dispute or is intended for the purpose of compelling workmen employed to accept certain terms and conditions of or affecting employment.
7. In the instant case, there is no evidence that the lock-out was declared in connection with an industrial dispute. Secondly, the lock-out was due to the fact that the electricity connection had been out off by the WAPDA Authorities and not for the purpose of compelling the workers to accept certain terms and conditions of the employment or effecting employment. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that it was a lock-out as defined under the Ordinance.
8. Further I find that no evidence was recorded before the impugned order was passed. Even the Assistant Director, who was present, did not go into the witness-box and make a statement.
Therefore, it is obvious that the Labour Court did not decide the case in a judicious manner. In the case, Bannu Woollen Mills v. Chairman, Industrial Court, West Pakistan, Lahore and 2 others it was observed: "An Industrial Court, though not confined strictly within the limits of the Code of Civil Procedure or the Evidence Act, is nevertheless "a functionary exercising judicial powers" and as has been observed in more than one case by this Court it is charged with the duty of adjudicating upon rights and liabilities in a judicious manner after applying its mind to all "relevant material properly brought on the record and the law applicable to the matters in dispute." It cannot act upon "mere conjecture and its own peculiar ideas of social justice" far less as a 'benevolent despot"?
9. In view of the above, I accept the revision, set aside the impugned order and reject the report of the Assistant Director, Labour Welfare.
PLD 1966 SC 4981 1