Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 1 of 1976, decided on 3rd February 1976.

----‑ S. 45‑Prohibition of strike‑Management's application for prohibi tion of illegal strike contested by Union on plea that there had been no strike‑Correspondence between Management and Union indicating raising of demands and discontentment amongst workers‑Allegation of existence of illegal strike appearing not wholly unfounded‑Issuance of prohibitory order, in circumstances, held, justified.

S. M. Yaqoob for Applicant.

S. S. Hussain for Respondent.

The brief facts giving rise to the present order are that Quality Steel Works Ltd. have filed an application under section 34 of the I. R. O., 1969, against Quality Steel Staff and Workers Union alleging that the applicants are running a factory of Steel Re‑rolling which is a nationalised industry under the Presidential Order No. 1 of 1972. About 400 workers are employed in the factory and there are various sections. The respondent‑Union is also a registered Trade Union and C. B. A. for the workers of the applicant‑Mills. It is alleged that a settlement was arrived between the parties on 20‑8‑1975 which is valid for two years and the Union is not competent to raise any financial demand as per clause 22 (c). It is further alleged that the workers perform their duties in the applicant‑Mills on the basis 'one hour work followed by one hour rest', which in the general practice in all re‑rolling mills. It is also a practice that if any worker is absent in any particular section, his co‑worker of the rest shift would perform duties of the absentee worker in addition to his own normal duties; for which extra wages are given to the workers who perform duties for the absentee workers. It is said that the Union gave a letter dated 22‑1‑76 raising a demand in respect of the extra work done by the workers. The Management responded their letter and asked them to work quietly in view of the existing agreement. Similarly, the correspondence went on in detail between the parties and the workers are said to have staged illegal strike in Rolling Mil] 'A' from 10‑00 a. m, to 11‑00 a. m. on 23‑1‑76 and in Rolling 'B' form 10‑00 a. m. to 11‑00 a. m. and as well as from 2‑00 p. m. to 3‑00 p. m. on the subsequent date. Similary, illegal strike is also said to have continued in Rolling Mill 'C'. The Union is said to have admitted the continuance of the illegal strike in writing vide letter dated 26‑1‑76. The office‑bearers of the Union are also said to have instigated the workers in gross violation of the I. R. O. to stage and to continue this illegal strike by which great financial loss is bound to accrue to the Government as well as to the nation including the workers themselves. Consequently, an application under section 34 has been filed in which a prayer has been made to declare that the illegal strike staged by the workers is in violation of the I. R. O., 1969 and thereby is in contravention of the rights guaranteed to the applicant‑Mills and that the Union may be directed to desist from such illegal tactics which are bound to cause loss to the applicants.

2. Alongwith the application stated above, the applicants have filed an application under section 45 of I. R. O. for prohibition of strike staged by the workers. The applicants have filed an affidavit of their Assistant Manager (Adorn) Mohammad Younus. The Union had been served with a notice and it has fled affidavit of Shahbaz Ali Ghauri, General Secretary of the Union. It is surprising to note that the Union has made a plea that there is no strike in the mills as alleged in the application. Shahbaz Ali Ghauri has further deposed that the mill is functioning properly and the workers are performing their respective duties as usual.

3. I have heard Mr. S. M. Yaqoob for the applicants and the President as well as the General Secretary of the Union in person. I have further gone through the agreement as well as the recent demands raised by the Union, their threats to go on strike and replies of the Management. Since the Union has completely denied to have staged strike and both the President and the General Secretary have made verbal statements before me during the course of arguments that they are working properly without obstructing the duty of any other worker, I have found that the exchange of letters between the parties is the only source of information at this stage whether or not any strike has been staged. Had there been no strike, it was redundant for the applicant‑Mill to have made such serious allegations of strike against the workers. Mr. S. M. Yaqoob has argued that although the workers go to work but they are not physically doing their work and thereby causing harassment to the Management to accept the demands and to put obstructions in the way of Management to run the mill properly. Letters of the Union apparently show that there is discontentment among the workers against the Management and that they have expressed their decision to go on strike at any moment. Furthermore the respondent Union has failed to show upto this stage as to bow and why the Manage ment has raised serious allegations such of strike against the workers. S. M. Yaqoob has cited a number of rulings arguing' that issuance of prohibitory order is necessary when the workers go on illegal strike. Since the parties have not produced evidence upto this stage, I would not like to express whether the alleged demands of the workers have any genuineness or rot. But at the present, they are proved to have gone on illegal strike, and, therefore, passing of a prohibitory order in the present case seems to be more important.

4. Under circumstances and facts explained above, I prohibit the continuance of the strike staged by the respondent‑Union till final decision of the main application under section 34 of the I. R. O., 1969.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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