1971 PLP 19 (PLC)

Industrial Relations Case No. 154 of 1970, decided on 2nd May 1970. Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXlll of 1969), S. 45-Lock out-Prohibition of Workers' Union failing to prove any lock out-Workers allegedly being locked out not found on strength of Mills--Application for prohibition of alleged lock-out, in circum stances, rejected. MD. NURLJL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN). The parties are present. The Members are present. Heard both the parties The case is inter locutory, The case of the first party is that after the prohibition of the strike by the Government in the premises of the second party when the workers went to join their duties, five workers, namely, Messrs Mokhlesur Rahman, Abdul Mannaf, Ataur Rahman, Sikander Ali and Abdul Barek were not allowed to join duties by the Management. The submission of the second party, on the other hand, is that there were no such workers in their pay roll at any time. The Management allowed the genuine workers to join their duties and debarred others who were not workers. Hence there was no case for partial lock out. When this matter was heard at length, the first party was represented by one Abdul Hamid who claimed himself to be the General Secretary of the first party workers Union. He has stated that he was dismissed long before. It is doubtful whether he has locus standi to represent the said 5 workers in the Court here. Previously this application was moved by one Mokhlesur Rahman of the Sangjukta Sramik Union. But that never appeared in Court again. However this Abdul Hamid at the time of his submission could not produce any paper in Court to prove that these 5 persons were at any time workers of the second party. He also could not produce the five persons in Court. The second party, on the other hand, produced their attendance register to show that there were no workers in the names of the said 5 persons. They have also produced other papers to show that the genuine workers were allowed to join their duties, after the strike was prohibited. It is the case of the first party that some workers were suspended, dismissed and discharged before the strike. As about the present 5 workers no paper or person could be produced by the first party. On the other hand, a new confused statement has been made by Mr. Abdul Hamid representing these five persons in Court. This gives rise to a suspicion that there is no worker bearing above 5 names. This is an interlocutory matter. Had these five workers been refused attendance in the Laboratory they could have definitely approached the Court for getting an order. But in fact, no such persons at any time, bearing any one of these names appeared in the Court. So it appears that the first party prima facie, has no A case for prohibiting a partial lock-out. Hence it is ordered that the earlier order prohibiting the partial lock-out be and is hereby vacated.