' Ravi Thread Works Workers' Union hereinafter refereed to as the petitioner-Union has filed the under through its General consideration petition Secretary Mr. Abdul R. 0 , 1969, against Sattar under section 34 of the 1. Messrs Ravi Ali, (2) Sh. Mehdi Thread Works through (1) Sh. Zahoor Raza,
(3) Mehboob Ali ex- Sh. Nawazish Ali, (4) Sh. Manzoor Ali, (5) Sh. Partners of Messrs Ravi Thread Works.
2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner-Union being the only Trade Union in the establishment of Messrs Ravi Thread Works was the C. R. A. And had been acknowledged as such by the Management and that the petitioner-Union in November, 1973, served a notice of demands under section 6 of the I. R.
0. On the Management. In March, 1974 suddenly the workers found the notice to the effect pasted on the factory gate that the same was sealed under the orders of the Civil Court. The matter was reported to the Assistant Director, Labour Welfare Department but subsequently on 11th April, 1974, Mr. Nawazish Ali the Managing Partner of the firm through a general notice terminated the services of all the workers of the factory. The action of respondent, according to the petitioner-Union in terminating the services of workers was :-
(a) Illegal lock-out as the respondent has terminated the services of the workers without following the procedure as prescribed under law
(8) illegal as the services of the workers have not been terminated in accordance with the provisions of clause 12 (3) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
Ordinance, 1968; and
(c) illegal as the respondent while terminating the services of all the workers has not sought permission before closing the whole of the establishment from this Court under clause 11-A of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968.
3. In view of the above it has been prayed by the petitioner-Union that the respondent might he directed to re-instate with full back-benefits all the workers whose services were terminated on 11th April 1974.
4. The respondent resisted the application and pleaded Inter alia that an application under section 34 of the I. R.
0., was not maintainable as no right has been guaranteed or secured to the so called petitioner- Union under any law, settlement or award and that the application in its present form was not maintainable as the firm has been dissolved by the partners and sealed under the orders of the civil Court. The learned Civil Judge appointed the referee in order to divide the assets of the firm.
The reference has made the report on 8th November, 1972, and the learned Court has divided the assets according to the report of the referee. It has further been pleaded by the respondents that this application was not maintainable in this Court and that the application was also not maintainable because the answering respondents were not the successors and assignee of Ex- Ravi Thread Works. The plea has also been raised that Sh. Zahoor Ali was no more the partner after the dissolution of the partnership. It has also been maintained that the application was not maintainable because this Court had already decided that none of the partners had declared the lock-out,-vide its order dated 22nd November, 1974, whereby reference filed by the Labour Department was dismissed. The plea that the petitioner-Union had no locus standi to file and persue the present petition has also been raised by the respondent.
5. Abdul Sattar General Secretary of the petitioner-Union has been examined on behalf of the Union in this case. He stated that on 13th November, 1973 a demand notice was served by the Union on the Management subsequently verbal agreement was arrived at regarding the payment of bonus after the managing director returned from Haj. The Management backed out. On 2nd March 1974, the notice was found on the gate of the factory that the factory had been sealed under the order of the civil Court. On 11th April, 1974 the Management displayed a termination notice. This witness has also been examined again on 11th October, 1975, and in a subsequent examination he stated that the petitioner-Union was registered on 25th February, 19/2. He admitted that after the formation of the Union annual elections were held on 2nd August, 1973. Those elections were not approved by the Registrar and subsequently no elections have taken place. He admitted that at present only few persons contributed as members of the Union.
6. Mr. Ghulam Mehboob Subhhani a Record Clerk of the office of the Registrar had deposed that according to Article 15, clause I of the Constitution of the Union the election of the office-bearers was to take place every year. The year was to be computed from 1st January to 31st December. On 17th September, 1973, a resolution was received about the annual election was not approved by the Registrar and letter was addressed accordingly to the Union raising objection. After that no intimation was received from the Union regarding election of the office-bearers. On 4th July 1975, the Registrar Trade Union, Lahore Region, Lahore has sent notice to petitioner-Union showing cause as to why their registration of the Union be not cancelled. The witness however conceded that the registration has not so far been cancelled and the matter was under consideration. No other evidence has been by the respondent in respect of preliminary objection.
7. It is noteworthy that in paragraph-1 of the written statement on merit the respondent has admitted this fact as correct that the petitioner-Union was the C. B. A. Of the ex-Ravi Thread Works.
This has also now come on the record that the petitioner-Union is still in existence and its registration has not been cancelled. In the circumstances this Union has the locus standi to file the present petition. In the circumstances of this case all the workers including all the members of the petitioner-Union who were employed in or-Ravi Thread works have been terminated and therefore the Union has every right to espouse such a collective cause of the workers under section 34. We therefore find little force in the first preliminary objection raised by the respondent and the same is overruled.
8. This is however noteworthy that the firm already stands dissolved under the order of civil Court and the industry in which the members of the petitioner- Union were employed is no more in existence hence the question of their re-instatement or absorption does not arise and cannot possibly be ordered. It has already been held by me while dealing with the report filed by the Labour Welfare Department under section 46-A of the I. R.0. That this was not case of illegal lock- out but it was a case of closure and sealing of the factory under the orders of the Court and that was beyond the control of the partners. When the factory has already been closed and partitioned the workers automatically got terminated and this is not a case of termination envisaged in Standing Order 12 (3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance. In Workers of Desai Ground & Co. v. Labour Court and others a case from Indian jurisdiction, it was held that when a partnership was dissolved by the preliminary decree of the civil Court and receiver appointed by the Court terminated the services of the employees of the business the decision of the Labour Court that closure of the business was unavoidable was correct. In the Indian Flour Mills Workers' Union v. Messrs India Flour Mills. Karachi the Sind Labour held that when mills obliged to close 3rd shift in pursuance of Government Orders and thus terminating the services of surplus workers, action of Management in the circumstances held does not amount to lock-out so as to attract provisions of section 26. In Fateh Mohammad v. Mian Abbas Ahmad it was held that when the termination was due to closure of business re-instatement was not awarded, arrears of wages if any was the remedy to be pursued in the proper Court.
9. In the light of what has been said above, we conclude that the grounds on which the action of the respondent has been challenged through the under: consideration petition by the petitioner-Union do not hold good, inasmuch as, in view of the circumstances of the case the closure of the concern which has occurred due to action of the civil Court does not amount to illegal lock out and the termination of services of the workers. For such a closure permission under Standing Order 11-A would also not appear to be essential. Even if by some stretch of imagination it be concluded that the closure has been in violation of the provisions of Standing Order 11-A of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, the remedy would appear to be a complaint for the breach of the provisions of Standing Order 11-A and not the relief as being claimed under section 34 in this case.
10. In view of the above, we conclude that the dissolution of partnership and the closure of the business of Ravi Thread Works, is an involuntary act of the partners under the orders of the civil Court and in such circumstances the relief of re-instatement of workers cannot his granted.
Novertheless the partners are still liable to the workers for the payment of the arrears of their wages, gratuity, bonuses and the notice pay etc. It is accordingly ordered that the partners shall individually and severally pay the aforesaid dues to the workers concerned. 1962 PLC 479 1971 PLC 150 1969 PLC 32 revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.