19670 PLP 861 (PLC)

‑--Lock‑out‑Prohibition of Employees Union seeking prohibition order from Court against alleged illegal lock‑out‑Management pleading no lock‑out‑Order issued, in circumstances, prohibiting continuance of illegal lock‑out, if any. MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑Members are present. Both parties are present. Heard the parties. The first party's case is that they formed. a Trade Union which was registered on 14‑4‑

70. Since then the Management came to swords with them and started harassing them. On 15‑5‑70 the workers reported for duty at 9 a.m., but they found the office under lock and key. After that on the subsequent days there was a partial lock‑out. It is further submitted by the Secretary of the Union that there is still a partial lock‑out with regard to 3 employees namely, M. A. Hafiz, Taherul Islam and T. M. Kashem. They have prayed. Prohibition of the continuance of the illegal lock‑out as it has been resorted to without complying the provisions of the I. R. O. The second party has filed written objection in which they denied the allegations and stated that there was no lock‑out and that even the 3 employees as alleged lastly are all on duty. It has been submitted that the Management had no bad relationship on account of forming the association by the workers. It was stated that on 18‑4‑70 one Md. Azam, Peon, misbehaved with an officer and while the Management was thinking of taking disciplinary action against him, 16 employees issued a threatening letter to the Management saying that dire con. Sequences would follow if any action is taken against Md. Azam. A letter of explanation was sought for from‑the 16 employees. Four employees submitted explanation. But the remaining 12 employees were suspected to have even stolen the explanations of the 4 employees and the threatening letter. So these 12 employees were suspended. On 15‑5‑70 the main outer gate was not under lock and key and no block ever remained closed from inside during working hours. The employees came to the office on 15‑5‑1970, signed the Attendance Register and worked. But these 12 persons did not sign the register. There was a tripartite sitting in which the matter was discussed and be h4anagement denied the existence of lock‑out in their firm which is neither a commercial nor an industrial establishment, but it was only a Head pyre of the Company. Point for determination is whether there is a prima facie case for prohibiting continuance of the alleged lock‑out. The cases of the two parties as given above will practically clarify the situation. The second party has denied that 'there is any lock‑out. The Attendance Register has been produced. Except on 15th, it appears that on all other days the workers signed. The second party submits that the employees would continue to get their salaries as there was no lock‑out and' there was regular work in the Company's Head Office. The first party, however, stated that there is still a partial lock‑out and that the employees are not given work though they attend office. We have nothing to say on this score since we cannot direct the employer to give work to their employees. What necessary for us is to see whether the employment is continuing? We have found from the written objection of the second party that‑ there was a tripartite sitting. It seems to us that there was some dispute between the parties, real or imaginary and we are not in a position to probe into the different pros and cons of that matter now as it is submitted by the second party that there is no legal lock‑out in compliance of the provisions of the I. R. O. We may only say that if there is any lock‑out it should be illegal. Hence to remove all confusions in this connection we order as follows: ??????????? The, Court prohibits forthwith continuance of the illegal lock?out if any, in the premises of the Head Office of the Omar Sons Ltd., 11, Mymensingh Road, Dacca. Members agree with my decision above on consultation.