1986 PLP 768 (PLC)

Malik Ghulam Rasul for Petitioner. M.G. Saadullah Mumtaz for Respondents. This is a complaint of unfair labour practice accompanied by a petition under Regulation 32(2) of the N.I.R.C. (Procedure a Functions) Regulations, 1973 for interim injunction to allow the officers of the union to join their duties till the final disposal of the complaint. The facts leading to the complaint and the petition, for the contents of the former are prayed to be read as part of the latter are that the Governor of the Punjab dissolved the Punjab Road Transport Board on 9‑5‑1985 and placed all its employees in the surplus pool. On 10‑9‑1985 when ten officers of the complainants G.T.S. Labour Welfare Union Regd. (C.B.A.) G.T.S. Depot Lahore came for duty they were stopped at the gate and not allowed to enter the premises. The complainant and three others were able to see Respondent No. 2 and asked him the reason for the lockout and demanded written orders but he refused and said that he was not bound to do so and said that he had instructions from respondent No. 1 not to allow the union to function and create problems against dissolution orders and instruction that all the officers locker out. Their juniors have been retained in service and the Respondents have tried to destroy the C.B.A. The respondents are prayed to be punished for unfair labour practice.

2. I have recorded the statement of the complainant. It is admitted fact that the P.R.T.B. was dissolved by Governor of the Punjab and its employees declared surplus. If so, since the union was conferred the status of C.B.A. for the Saddar Depot of the P.R.T.B., its C.B.A. status came to an end. Since it was registered as trade union for that establishment i.e. P.R.T.B. the same having been dissolved the union was also dissolved. Thus, there was no motive or need for either the respondents Nos. 1 to 2 to bar the entry of officers of petition/ complainant's union from work and to lock them out.

3. As far as the allegation of lockout is concerned merely not allowing a workman to enter the work place does not constitute a lock out unless such refusal is in connection with an industrial dispute or for compelling the workmen employed to accept certain terms and conditions affecting employment. In this present case there was neither any dispute nor any compulsion. Thus, there was no lock‑out.

4. I consequently hold that no case of unfair labour practice is made out and dismiss this complaint.

5. I also hold that no unfair labour practice was likely to be committed and vacate the order, dated 23‑9‑1985. A.E.???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Complaint dismissed.