1976 PLP 165 (PLC)

Application No. 451 of 1974, decided on 5th September, 1974. Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)

Ss. 34 & 25-A read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, r. 2-Stay order-Employer intending to close a branch of establish ment and serving lay-off notice on some of its workers-Workers' Union as Collective Bargaining Agent making application to Labour Court under S. 34 alleging that lay-off was based upon mala fide intention

Workers' Union praying for temporary stay order restraining employer from removing from removing from service such workers pending decision of its application-Employer challenging locus standi of Union and jurisdiction of Labour Court on plea that Union bad no right guaranteed to it . k1q under law, settlement or award which was violated and workers if aggrieved could seek redress before Junior Labour Court under S. 25-A-Competency of application and jurisdiction of Court, in circumstances, held, require determination after recording of evidence regarding alleged mala fide intention-Petitioner, in circumstances, held, had prima facie arguable case and balance of convenience being in favour of petitioner-Union stay order, applied for granted. Rana Sakhawat Ali for 'Petitioner. Abdul Hakeem Sahota for Respondent. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties about the stay application The under-consideration stay application arises out of an application under section 34 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 filed by the petitioner Union which is obviously C.B.A. in the establishment of the respondent and the said application declaration has been sought that the alleged lay-off of 22 workers employed in Lacquering Section of the respondent-Mills, was based on mala fide and was illegal and wrongful and therefore, the workers, employed in the said section were entitled to continue in the service. In the application for stay order it is prayed that the respondent-establishment might be restrained till decision of the application filed under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 from removing the employees, whose list is given in the application, from service on the basis of the notice of lay off served by the respondent on 22nd July 1974. This application has been opposed on the ground that the petitioner-Union, acting as C. B. A. had no locus standi to bring the application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, as no right, guaranteed to the C. B. A. under any law, settlement or award had been violated and that the workers concerned who felt aggrieved could seek redress if so advised under section 25-A of the industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. On the basis of this plea, jurisdiction of this Court has been challenged as well. It has also been contended by the respondent that there has been no retrenchment and in fact, the respondent intended to close, Lacquering Section and thus the workers were to be laid off. As regards respondent's plea that no right, guaranteed to the petitioner Union as C. B. A. under any law, settlement of a ward had been violated and therefore, the petitioner had no locus standi to bring this application, it is observed that according to the factual position as it emerges from the parties, pleading the respondent intends to close its Lacquering Section which will consequently cause unemployment or lay-off of 22 workers who are presently employed in that section. The petitioner's contention is that the said section is not independent unit but was a part of the Mills as a whole. The workers employed in that section had been recently posted from other sections in that section and that the Management with mala fide intentions wanted to victimize those workers on the pretext of lay-off. These questions require determination after recording evidence. The competency of the application in its present form and the jurisdiction of the Court are thus dependent upon the determination of the aforesaid issues. In this view of the matter prima facie, the petitioner has an arguable case which can be concluded after holding the necessary inquiries. Balance of the convenience is also in favour of the petitioner inasmuch as its members i.e. workers are sought to be f rendered jobless on the plea of lay-off and shall be deprived of their wages and the right to continue in service if the lay-off is ultimately proved to be based on mala fide. In view of this it is directed that the respondent shall not remove the workers listed in the stay application from service till the decision of the application, filed under sectioni34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.