1978 PLP 210 (PLC)

‑‑ S. O. 11‑A and Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 47‑Closure of establishment‑Application for closure under S. O. II‑A cannot be made during pendency of dispute. Sadiq Hussain for Petitioner Naeem Sultan Butt for Respondent This petition was made for closure of the establishment known as Umar Yar Limited Sun Rise Doubling Workers, Amarsidhu, Kot Lakhpat, Lahore, before Punjab Labour Court No, 1, Lahore. Evidence of the parties was recorded by my learned brother. Presiding Officer Punjab Labour Court, No.

1. There was some incident between the parties outside the Court and in this respect employer moved the National Industrial Relations Commission. National Industrial Relations Commission asked my learned brother to give his comments on the incident so far that reason my learned brother for warded this petition to the Hon'ble Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal for transfer of tea some other Court so it was transferred to this Court by the learned Appellate Tribunal. I have beard the learned counsel of the parties and have gone through the record of the Junior Labour Court. Petitioner concern has examined 4 witnesses including Mr. Umar Saighol proprietor of the establishment, whereas respondent‑Union has examined two witnesses, who are the employees of this establishment. There are about 25 workers in the establishment. It was established in the end of 1974. A Union of the employees' came into existence somewhere in April, 1975, and from that time onward there is constant unrest in the establishment. To prove this fact petitioner has got exhibited numerous, documents such as orders from the National Industrial Relations Commission, reports made to the Police, and other authorities. Naturally produc 3n must have gone low. It is also in evidence that Manager of the Establishment did not attend the factory for about 8 months out of fear of injury to his person. If evidence adduced by the proprietor is believed then it appears that employees have been indulging in unfair labour practice throughout but unfair labour practice on the part of employees cannot become a good ground for permission to closure. This is in evidence of the employer that if factory is run peacefully then no loss can occur to the employer. Employer can file petitions under section 45 against the ring leaders after making enquiry into misconducts or disorderly behaviour of the concerned employees. An application for closure under Standing Order No. 11,E of the West Pakistan Industrial and commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, would make the provisions of section 47 redundant if it is made during pendency of dispute. In that view of the matter petition for getting permission for closure is hereby dismissed.