1991 PLP 784 (PLC)

This order will dispose of application under Regulation 32(2) of N.I.R.C. (P & F) Regulations, 1973 on which an interim prohibitory order was passed by me on 5-3-1991 in the following terms:- Notice. Meanwhile respondents and persons connected with them are directed to refrain from illegal lock out, closing down whole of the establishment without permission of Labour Court, harassment, coercion, intimidation, inducement and offering advantages to workers and officers of the union for giving up their trade union activities and to conduct their affairs in a manner calculated to avoid occurrence of unfair labour practice.

2. Briefly the case of applicant is that they served a charter on respondents containing 32 demands, followed by notice of strike. The management instead of taking a sympathetic view, adopted adamant attitude so much so that even before Conciliator they stipulated resignation of about 30% workers as a condition precedent to the acceptance of their demands. They have stopped providing raw material to workers for normal production, shifted some machines to Lahore so as to justify non-supply of raw material and induced the workers by conferring and offering to confer advantages, to cease to be members of petitioner-union. Not only this but they have threatened to remove them from service and close down the establishment if they did not agree to their proposal. It is alleged that this attitude of the Management aims at crushing the union.

3. Case of respondents on the other hand is that they are facing financial crisis due to tough competition in the wake of influx of smuggled blades, establishment of world renowned Gillette Blade Factory in Pakistan, rising cost of raw material and increasing over-head expenses on production. The Management, in a bid to reduce expenses and surplus staff tried to introduce a voluntary retirement scheme with extra benefits but taking law into their own hands, the union did not allow the Management to affix Notice of it on the Notice Board. Therefore the notice had to be published in newspapers and sent to union by Registered Post. As regards shifting of some machines to Lahore factory of the respondents, it is stated that on account of import of latest high speed machinery for Hyderabad factory the old machinery had become either redundant or surplus. Some of it was rebuilt at Lahore factory and the rest could not be rebuilt. It is lying there as scrap.

4. It is admitted by the petitioner in para No.5 of the petition that the respondents had been generous in giving higher and better incentive and facilities to workers each year over the period of last decade in spite of slender profits or even no profits at all according to their balance-sheets. Only this year the Management had become adamant in their stand. The Management has also asserted that they have been going as far as possible in accepting demands of workers in the past so as to improve their terms and conditions of service but the petitioners have proved to be fair weather friends. They adopted unreasonable attitude when the Management wanted to set off negotiated increase of Rs.200 in wages against additional special allowance payable under the Sindh Employees Special Allowance (Payment) Amendment Ordinance, 1990.

5. In these circumstances it does not stand to reason that such a reasonable employer would suddenly become hostile to workers, the union or their trade union activities without any rhyme or reason. The respondents have filed documents which support their version whereas the petitioner's version is supported only by their affidavit which does not inspire confidence in the circumstances referred to above. The respondent could have resorted to retrenchment in peculiar circumstances of tire case but it adopted a more reasonable and sympathetic attitude by introducing a scheme which provided for generous extra benefits to those opting for voluntary retirement. For these reasons I do not find that the petitioners have made out a good prima facie case. The interim prohibitory order is therefore vacated to 27-5-1991. H.B.T./136/N-I.R.C.??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Interim order vacated.