1971 PLP 24 (PLC)

In their written objection the opposite-party, the E. P. R. T. C. Workers' Union stated that they were not a necessary party in the case as the question of retrenchment is not a subject-matter of the present dispute or reference and that the first party Union has no authority to represent the-workers in any proceeding other than the proceedings involved in the charter of demands. It was further stated that the E. P. R. T. C. with some motive to delay the proceedings of the reference case has filed this permission case. During the hearing of the case the opposite-party's lawyer Mr. Moudud Ahmed, Bar-at-Law, submitted that under section 47 of the

1. R. O. retrenchment cannot be treated as a measure of punishment and therefore for seeking permission to retrench no petition should lie in the Court. Point for determination: Whether a petition under section 47 of the I. R. O. would lie in a case of proposed retrenchment, during the pendency of a Reference under section 32 of the

1. R. O. In the present case both the parties agree that no petition under section 47 of the I. R. d. would lie in case of proposed retrench ment as in the present case since the retrenchment is not a measure of punishment, The case of the petitioner E. P. R. T. C. as that to make the matter clear from their side during the pendency of the Reference Case No. 164/1970 they have submitted this application for the knowledge and permission of the Court. It is also their opinion that a petition under section 47 of the I. R. O. in case -of proposed retrenchment does not lie as according to section 2 (q) of the East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965 means the termination by the employer of services of worker, not as a measure of punishment infliscted by way of diciplinary action, but on the ground of redundancy, whereas section 47 of the I. R. O. is as follows: "

47. Condition of sea vice. to I remain unchanged while proceeding pending.-(I) No employer shall, while any concilia tion proceedings or proceedings before an Arbitrator, a Labour Court of Tribunal in respect of an industrial dispute are pending, alter to the disadvantage of any workman concerned in such dispute, the conditions of service applicable to him before the commencement of the conciliation proceedings or of the proceedings before the Arbitrator, the Labour Court or Tribunal, as the case may be, nor shall he- (a) save with the permission of the Conciliator, while any conciliation proceedings are pending, or (b) save with the permission 'of the Arbitrator, the Labour Court or Tribunal, while any proceedings before the Arbitrator, Labour Court or Tribunal are pending, discharge, dismiss or otherwise punish any workman except for misconduct not connected with such dispute. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in'-subsection (1), an officer of a registered Trade Union shall not, during the Pendency of any proceedings referred to in subsection (1), be discharged, dismissed or otherwise punished for misconduct, except with the previous permission of the Labour Court. It is quite clear that in the present case there is 'no proposal to discharge, dismiss or otherwise punish any worker or any officer of the registered Trade Union from the side of the E. P. R. T. C. The opposite-party Union from the very beginning has behaved as a necessary party in the case. They have taken time to file their written objection, prayed for the list of workers to be retrenched, etc. It further appears that a permission case like this, whether this is called for or not, had to be filed only because the Reference Case No. 164/ 1970 between the E. P. R. T. C. Workers' Union as the first party and E. P.A. T. C. as the second party was pending. Otherwise, no case need to have been filed by the present petitioner. So in the present case the- E. P. R. T. C. Workers' Union is the only necessary party as a matter of procedural formalities., As such, I am of the opinion that no petition under section 47 of the

1. R. O. lies in the present matter. Hence on hearing both the parties we refrain from taking any action in the present application, and therefore, file the matter without any prejudice to the cases of either parties. Members on consultation have agreed with my decision as given above.