Find a Lawyer

Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 76 to 78 of 1972, decided on 2nd June 1972.

, S. 22(6)(d) -Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, rr. I & 2 Injunction, temporary‑Respondent‑Union resorting to strike after observing prescribed procedure‑‑Such right secured and guaranteed under law‑Injunction claimed on ground that in case of strike; applicants and Government would suffer ground, held no ground for restraining Union from resorting to strike.

A. A. Shareef for Applicants,

F. M. Ahmad for Respondent,

In these 9 applications, under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C. P. C., the applicants seeks ad interim injunction against the respondent‑Union restraining then from resorting to strike in pursuance of their Notice dated 25th April 1972. Since all tire applications are of the same nature, sad directed against the same respondent, this order will dispose of teem all.

The strike is being resorted to, admittedly, after complying with all the requirements of law. The respondent union had submitted a Charter of Demands to the applicants under section 25, followed by a Notice to the Conciliator under section 27(a) and, when the conciliation could not take place, the notice of strike under section 28 was served on the applicants. The only ground, disclosed in the affidavits of the applicants in support of the present applications, for restraining the strike is that the applicants would suffer heavy losses and the Government of Pakistan would also undergo loss of Excise Duty. But‑this can hardly be a ground for restraining the respondent‑Union from resorting to the strike, which is their right guaranteed and secured tinder the Law, they have observed the prescribed procedure. I their applications under section34 of the I. R. 0., 1969, however, the applicants have challenged the competence of the respondent Union to raise the Industrial Dispute. According to them the respondent‑Union purports to represent the workman of different Establishments, which are being run by separate Managements. But, the fact that they respondent Union is admittedly a Registered Union of the workmen of all Much Establishments, is prima facie sufficient ground for them to raise the Industrial dispute. How ever the question whether such Union is not competent to raise 'be Industrial Dispute in respect of the applicants establishments would be determined when the applications under section 34 of the I. R. O., 1969, come up for hearing.

Therefore, for the present, I find that the applicants have not made out any prima facie case for the grant of the, add interim injunction they have sought. Consequently all the applications are dismissed,

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.