1972 PLP 271 (PLC)

Muhammad Shafi Yousufzai for Respondent. HIDAYAT HUSSAIN (CHAIRMAN)

Adams Tea Blending Factory have terminated the services of 50 of their employees out of 9'6 can the ground that the supplies of tea leaves from East Pakistan have broken down and, therefore, they need retrenchment. The respondent‑Union says that this termina tion of services amounts to illegal lock‑out and, therefore, they proceeded on strike on 28‑491971. Through this application under section 45 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the applicants want me to declare the strike of the respondents illegal and require them to resume work. Mr. Mahmood Abdul Ghani who appears for the applicants has the following contentions to make :‑ (a) These are abnormal days and although there has been a lot of improvement in the conditions in East Pakistan yet the stage has not been reached where tea leaves may be plucked from the gardens and packed to be exported to this part of the country. (b) Termination of the services does not amount to lock out and the case reported in 1971 P L C 11 supports this view. (c) The balance of convenience also lies in favour of the Factory because if this Court finally comes to the conclusion that the strike is unlawful then there will be nothing to compensate the employers nor will there be any remedy for the striking workers. On the other hand if these workers resume work and if this Court comes to the conclusion that the termination of the services of workers was not lawful the Court may order their re‑instatement with back benefits. Dr. Mohammad Shafi Yousufzai who appears for the respondent‑Union replies as follows: (a) This Court has no jurisdiction to proceed with this matter because there is no dispute pending before this Court. (b) The strike is legal because it has come into existence on account of the illegal lock‑out. (c) The Management retrenched a number of employees in the past also. This order is of a temporary nature and, therefore, I will not express any opinion on the merits of the case unless it is absolutely necessary for the determination of the interim applica tion. Prima facie it appears that the contention of Mr. Mahmood Abdul Ghani that termination of the services does not amount to lock‑out is correct. Moreover, it is yet to be determined whether there has been a lock‑out and if so illegal. In this view of matter the balance of convenience requires that the workers may be directed to resume work. As regards the contentions of Dr. Yousufzai that there is no dispute between the parties, suffice it to say that the applicants have preferred an application under section 34 of the Ordinance. Further it is an admitted position before me that the workers had gone on strike because there was a dispute on the question of the termination of the services of the employees. For the reasons given above I prohibit the continuance of the strike and order the workers to resume work.