1973 PLP 42 (PLC)

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XX111 of 1969) Ss. 34 & 45 Contention that respondents closed down factory and terminated services of applicants for reason of applicants' intended formation of a Trade Union controverted by documents produced by respondents‑Question whether lock‑out and termination of services Illegal requiring recording of evidence, held could properly be determined in application moved under S. 34‑No. prima facie case, held, made out for prohibition of alleged lock‑out. Muhammad Haseen Fazli for Applicants. Ghulam Nassau for Respondent. In this application, under section 45 of the Industrial Rela tions Ordinance, 1969, the 3 applicants seek an order prohibiting the lock‑out alleged to have been resorted to by the respondents. The case of the applicants is that they were Intending to form a Trade Union to safeguard their legitimate interests, and they had approached the Special Labour Committee for this purpose. But, the respondents, in order to frustrate their efforts in that direction put up a General Notice closing the Factory and have issued the orders of termination of service of the applicants and others. They further state that, after having terminated their services, the respondents have started fresh recruitments on con tract basis and have restarted the production in the Re‑rolling section of their Factory. Therefore, the applicants have moved this application. The case of the respondents is that there are two independent and separate concerns known as "Yaqoob Industries Re‑rolling Mills" and "Yaqoob Industries Trailer Works". The latter Con cern was closed down on account of stoppage of orders from East Pakistan and due to other circumstances. A General Notice to this effect, dated 8th August 1972, was put up by the respondents and individual letters were issued to the applicants and others terminating their services, as the applicants were black‑smiths working in Trailer Works. All the three applicants collected their dues in full and final settlement of all claims and passed "Clearance Certificate" to the respondents. The applicants Shamsuddin and Shahadat Ali have also collected their "Service Certificates". The applicants had also intimated to the various authorities that they had amicably settled their grievances and all their dues had been fully paid to them. The respondents have produced the documents in support of each contention of theirs. They have denied that they started fresh recruitments after termi nating the services of the applicants. Therefore, in view of the documents produced by the res pondents, the questions whether they had closed down the Trailer Works bona fide, and whether it was the termination of service of the applicants or illegal lock‑out will require recording of evidence. Consequently, these questions can properly be deter mined when the application under section 34 of the I.R.O., 1969, moved by the applicants come up for hearing. For the present, however, I do not find that the applicants have made out a prima facie case for the prohibition of the alleged lock‑out. Therefore this application will also be heard alongwith that application under section 34 of the I.R.O., 1969.