1972 PLP 434 (PLC)

SHAFFI MUHAMMAD R. AKHUND (CHAIRMAN).‑‑The Volun teer Hospital Workers' Union (hereinafter to be described as applicants) filed Application No. 13/72, on 22nd April 1972, under section 45 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, for the prohibition of lock‑out of 45 workers alleged to have been illegally effected by the respondents on 4th April 1972. Notice was issued to the respondents and they were served, but none appeared on their behalf when the matter came up for hearing on 28th April 1972. Consequently, prohibitory order under section 45 was passed on that date. Thereafter, on 29th April 1972, the Volunteer Charitable Hospital (hereinafter to be described as respondents) moved an Application No. 23/72 under section 45 seeking prohibition of strike alleged to have been illegally resorted to by 25 workers, since 4th April 1972, on account of termination of services of 16 workers. On the same date, they also filed an application praying that the ex parte order passed on 28th April 1972 be set aside. This prayer was granted and the respondents were allowed to content the matter. Since both matters are connected, and were heard together, this order will dispose of both applications. The case of the applicants is that their Union was registered on 29th March 1972, and the intimation thereof was communi cated to the respondents on 3rd April 1972. On receipt of this information, the respondents locked cut 33 workers, on the night between 3rd and 4th April, without giving them any prior notice or intimation. On 4th April 1972, they locked out 12 more employee, including the office‑bearers of the Union, by display ing a notice on the Notice Board to the effect that their services were terminated because they had formed an illegal Union and were disturbing the industrial peace. The applicants have pro duced the photo copy of this Notice. The applicants further state that their efforts through the Labour Directorate and the Assistant Commissioner, Harbour, for lifting the lock‑out have proved futile on account of the adamant attitude of the res pondents. The respondents claim that their hospital is a charitable institution. They have denied that they had locked out 45 employees. They state that, due to financial difficulties and lack of donations, they were compelled to terminate the services of 16 workers. On account of this, 25 employees have resorted to illegal strike since 4th April 1972, without adopting the prescribed procedure. They had also indulged in acts of violence such se 'gherao' and 'jalao', taking charge of the Hospital in their own hands, and when the authorities intervened, they abandoned the Hospital. The respondents further state that the Notice dated 4th April 1972, produced by the applicants, is a forged one and was not issued by them. They have produced some documents in support of their contentions, including the letter, dated 4th April 1972, whereby services of 16 employees were terminated. Now, the case of the respondents is that they were compelled to terminate the services of the 16 workers due to financial difficulties and shortage of funds. But, the letter dated 4th April 1972, produced by them, shows that their services Were terminated on account of acts of violence and indiscipline such as gheraoing the President of the Hospital and trying to take the control of the Hospital, working carelessly for the whole day, resorting to strike and preventing other members of the staff from attending to duty. These are clearly acts of misconduct for which the employees could be dismissed or discharged after serving them with charge‑sheet and show‑cause notice and holding enquiry, as provided by Standing Order

15. Therefore, even assuming that the Notice produced by the applicants is a forged' one, the question still remains whether the services of the 16 employee could be terminated, for acts of misconduct alleged against them, without a charge‑shoot, show‑cause notice, and enquiry. Another significant circumstances is that, whereas the respondent Hospital is said to have run into financial difficulties since October 1971, the necessity to terminate the services of the employees arose only a few days after the registration of the applicant‑Union, on 29th March 1972. The respondents have not denied the date of the registration of the Union, though they state that the intimation thereof was received by them on or about 6th April 1972 and not on 3rd April 1972.