Case Details

Citation(s)
1973 SLG 3024 = 1973 SLD 3024 = 1973 PLC 48
Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal
Application No.37of 1972, decided on 18th July 1972.
Presented By: Shaffi Muhammad R. Akhund, Chairman, F. A. Khan and Kassam Usman Kandawala, Members
Ali Amjad for Applicant. Abdul Razzaq for
Respondents.

HAQUE SILK WORKERS' UNION, KARACHI

VERSUS

Messrs HAQUE TEXTILES

Law: Industrial Relations Ordinance, (XXIII of 1969)

Section: 45

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 45-Lock out-Prohibition of-Union alleging lock-out of several workers Management asserting wilful absence on part of some and denying other as their employees-Record indicating refusal by Management to accept request of some workers to be allowed to resume work Prohibitory order in respect of such workers only issued and question whether remaining workers were, actually employees of respondent left till determination of application under S.34.                                                                                                                              ORDER SHAFFI MUHAMMAD R. AKHUND (CHAIRMAN).--In this application under section 45 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the applicant-Union seeks prohibition of the lock-out of 7 workers namely (1) Muhammad Ayub, (2) Noor Ahmad, (3) Muhammad Ismail, (4) Rehmatullah, (5) Noor Muhammad, (6) Muhammad Munir and (7) Sabir Ali, by the respondents, pending the disposal of their application under section 34 of the industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The case of the applicant-Union is that the workers named above are the office-bearers of the Union. The respondents have refused to allow them to perform their duties, on different dates between 9th May 1972 to 18th May 1972, without serving them with any letter of termination, discharge or dismissal. According to them, the respondents have been indulging in the harassment and the victimisation of the office-bearers of the Union and the workers because the later had been demanding the Implementation of the terms of the Settlement between the workmen and the respondents, which the latter have refused to do. They further state that the above-named workers have been locked-out even without any notice to that effect. The respondents contend that the application is not main tainable, firstly,…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register