Case Details

Citation(s)
1972 SLD 3122 = 1972 PLC 419
Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal
Application No. 56 of 1970, decided on 7th December 1971.
Presented By:  Hidayat Hussain, Chairman and Shaukat Ali A. Nanji, Members
S. P. Lodhi for Applicant. Izzat Puri for
Respondents.

WORKERS' UNION

VERSUS

MESSERS TAJ RESTAURANT, KARACHI

Law: Industrial Relations Ordinance, (XXIII of 1969)

Section: 45

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) S. 45-Lay of- Urgent repairs of hotel - No sufficient reason to lay-off workers-Management found coercing workers not to pursue enforce ment of award-Lay-off, in circumstances, held, a cloak to cover lock-out-Application for prohibition of lock-out, in circumstances, granted.                                                                                                                           ORDER HIDAYAT HUSSAIN (CHAIRMAN).-----The applicant-Union has filed an application under section 34 of the I. R. O., 1969, for the enforcement of the award given by the Second Sind Labour Court, Karachi in Industrial Dispute No. 4/71 under section 32 of I. R. O. According to the applicants the respondents adopted tactics to do away with that award and to achieve that end they have resorted to illegal lock-out under the cloak of lay-off for a period of two and a half months. Through this application under section 45 of the I. R. O., 1969, therefore, the applicants pray that this lock-out may be declared illegal. A notice of this application was served on the respondents. Mr. Izzat Puri appears for them. Mr. Saeed Pasha Lodhi appears for the applicants and con tends as follows :- (a) Lay-off cannot be resorted to by the hotels. (b) No cause whatsoever has been shown for laying-off the workers. (c) The Management did not fulful the terms of the award and when the workers pressed for its enforcement they were denied work under the cloak of lay-off. Mr. Izzat Puri replies as follows :- (a) Most of the office-bearers of the Union have left the Management and, therefore, the Union is not properly consti tuted. (b) This is a case of lay-off for a definite period. (c) There is no provision in law to disclose the cause for which lay-off is resorted to. (d) If the workers felt that the award had not been implemented they could have…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register