1. decision MD. NURAL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--This is an applica--tion under section 34, read with section 45 (1) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance; 1969, hereinafter referred to as the I. R. O., for prohibiting the lock-out in the second party jute mills.
2. The case of the first party is that their Union is the duly registered and collective bargaining agent.
3. They submitted a charter of demands on 3-3-70. But after the receipt of the charter of demands the Management started harassing the Union workers in various ways and ultimately they submitted a counter-charter of demands on 'I-4-70 in which they demanded of the Union to stop all sorts of gherao, intimidation; threatening coercion, violence, etc., which had no financial implication and which are triable in the Court of Magistrate. Thereafter suddenly on 13-4-70 the Management closed the mills under section 6 (6) of the East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965, for an indefinite period. During the closure they submitted a notice for lock-out on, 11-5-70. This is an illegal lock-out in so far the charter of demands is not legal and the collective bargaining agent cannot give any relief to the other party. Further, during the closure of the mills no lock-out could have been resorted to.
4. The second party entered into appearance by filing a written statement in which-they contested the allegations brought by the first party. They stated that the collective bargaining agentand the workers started all sorts of harassm ent to the Management and the staff, gheroaed, intimidated- end coerced them on 3lifferent occasions with illegal and legal demands. They did Rot pursue their charter of demands and no conciliation could be effectively held, and finally the President of the Union refused .to sign the agreement. Hence the Management under extreme circumstances of .a strike by the staff and the officers, the Management closed the mill on 14-4-70 and thereafter for availing of the machinery of conciliation, served a notice of lock-out on 11-5-70 and thereafter the lock-out continued during the closure of the mills. The Management wants to open the Mills in due course, after arriving at a settlement between the parties--- means of conciliation or otherwise. At the moment, as there is a lock-out validly done under the law, the Manage--ment wants to get the lock-out prohibited by the Government under section 32 and wants the, case to be referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. So the application is premature and should be dismissed with cost.
5. Point for determination is whether the lock-out resorted to and continued by the second party should be prohibited.
6. FINDINGS AND DECISION It appears from the admitted point of the case that the Union first party submitted a charter of demands on 3-3-70, but .no action was taken by the Union under section 26 of the I. R. O. It is submitted by the second party that during this period there was gherao, intimidation, coercion and violence by the workers and Police machinery failed to restore the peace, tranquility and normal production hampered and the staff and officers found themselves in insecure position. Workers, on the other hand, alleged that the Management resorted to harassment victimisation and avoiding tactics in apply to their charter of demands. Thereafter, the Management submitted their own charter of demands on 7-4-70 which related to issues which were guaranteed by right or by' law such' as the protection of the members of the Management staff. It is submitted by the first party that the Labour Court is not the proper forum for adjudication of such charter of demands which ultimately led to the lock-out by the second party. It is also submitted that the first part also could not guarantee in respect of these demands an also could not enter into any settlement. It is quite clear that this charter of demand should find, its proper, forum in the Criminal Court possibly under section 107 read with section 117, Cr. P. C. - There, possibly the Second party could get the grievances redressed, and the Labour Court cannot adjudication on such a charter of demands.
7. Similarly, on such charter o demands the Government cannot take any action since the first party c4nnot be forced to admit that they were resorting to criminal activities and as such, no settlement could be arrived at. s So a wrong procedure has been adopted by the second party. Apparently the second party has been ill-advised. If the second party has any grievance on the charter of demands they should have approached the Criminal Court. There cannot be .any lock out on this ground. Further, we find that during the closure of the mill the lock-out was commenced. This is technically impossible since- closure itself is a legal method as admitted by the second party.
8. Luring the continuation of this process, another process of the same nature is impossible to operate. So, it appears that the lock-out is illegal and the same should be prohibited.
9. Hence it is ordered that the lock-out commenced and continued in the Purbo Pakistan Jute Mills Ltd. at the instance of the second party be prohibited forthwith.
10. Members on consultation have agreed with my decision give above.