1978 PLP 4 (PLC)

‑‑‑ S. 46‑A (4)‑Labour Court directing Management to lift illegal lock‑out‑Persons having voluntarily accepted retrenchment and received termination dues in full and final settlement of their accounts prior to order of Labour Court‑Held, cannot claim benefit of Labour Court's order. Naeem Sultan Butt for Petitioner S. Noor Ahmad for Respondent. On the report of the Assistant Director, Labour Welfare, Lahore under section 46‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, this Court made an order on 19th May, 1975 directing the Management of Machine Tools Manufacturing Company, Multan Road, Lahore to lift the illegal lock‑out immediately and to re‑instate the illegal locked out workers. It was also directed that back benefits be also paid to such illegally locked‑out workers.

2. On 28th May, 1975 Machine Tools Manufacturing Labour Union hereinafter referred to as the petitioner Union filed the under consideration application under section 46‑A (4) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance against the Management of Machine Tools Manufacturing Factory, Multan Road, Lahore, seeking relief to the effect that the Factory of the respondent might be attached and an order might be made for the appointment of official receiver. It is alleged that after the order of the Court the respondent pasted a notice on 24th May 1975 stating that in accordance with the order of the P. L. C. No. 1 all the workers who were terminated by order dated 1st April, 1975 were re‑instated. It was however added that this order would not apply to those employees who had resigned and had received their dues. It is further alleged that all the workers having not been allowed to resume duty in accordance with order of the Court the lock‑out wag continuing. The respondent resisted the application and pleaded that the petition was not maintainable in as much as there had been no contravention of any order of the Court, nor there was any continuance of any lock‑out. There was no hardship to the community or a prejudice to the National interest. The respondent maintained that the petitioner Union through the present petition sought to espouse an imaginary cause of those workers who had no grievence and had not requested or authorised the petitioner Union to make the present petition to this Court.

3. The petitioner Union had examined Sarwar Iqbal, Muhammad Shafi, Muhammad Ashraf and Barkat Ali, General Secretary of the petitioner‑Union. Sarwar Iqbal, Muhammad Shafi and Muhammad Ashraf stated that they were retrenched with other 36 workers and after the order of the Court they had gone to the Factory to resume duty but they were not allowed to do so. These witness however admitted that they had received their termination dues in full and final settlement of their accounts vide receipts Exh R‑1 to Exh, R‑3 respectively. Barkat Ali deposed that when the Court declared the retrenchment of workers as illegal lock‑out and directed the Management to lift the illegal lock‑out, the Management displayed a notice to the effect that the workers might resume duty. After this 40 or 42 workers resumed. The remaining workers were promised to be taken back if and when there was work in the Factory. The number of such workers according to Mr. Barkat Ali was

46. He denied the suggestion that the Management did not make any promise to restore the workers who had received their termina tion dues to the job. He could not repudiate the suggestion that these 46 workers had received their termination dues.

4. It transpires from the parties, evidence that at the time when the Management had recourse to retrenchment of about 86 workers, 46 workers voluntarily accepted the retrenchment and received the termination dues in full and final settlement of their accounts as is evident from the contents of Exhs R‑1 to R‑

3. Such person could not therefore, claim the benefits of the A order of the Court whereby the Management was directed to lift the illegal lock‑out inasmuch as they had already left the service of the Management. In this manner there has been no violation of the order of this Court, made on 19th May 1975.

5. In this view of the matter the provisions of subsection (4) of section 46‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, are not attracted and there is hardly any occasion to believe that the lock‑out was continuing and was causing serious hardship to the community or was prejudicial to the national interest. In this view of the matter there is no merit in the under consideration application which is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.