1. SHAFFI MUHAMMAD R. AKHUND (CHAIRMAN).---In this appli--cation under section 45 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the applicants seek prohibition of strike which had con-- tinued for 100 days on 29th June 1972, when the application was made.
2. The case of the applicants is that they had entered into a Settlement, on 2nd July 1971, with the respondent-Union which is the Collective Bargaining Agent of their Establishment. Accord--ing to the Clause lit of the said Settlement, the Union had re--cognised the fact that there were less than 50 workmen employed in the applicant Factory and as such the provisions of various Labour Laws were not applicable to them. It was further agreed that the Union would not raise any demand involving financial Implications for the Management till the operative period of the Settlement which was to remain In operation till 30th June 1973. In spite of this Settlement, the respondent- Union served a fresh Notice under section 26 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1,969, on 16th January 1972, containing 2 demands. There was again a Settlement with respect to one Demand, on 2nd February 1971, between the applicants and the respondent-Union. Thus, the only demand that remained was the-same as had been already Agreed upon in Clause 3 of the Settlement dated 2nd July 1,971. However in pursuance of that demand, the respondent-Union served a Notice of Strike under section 28 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, on 21st February 1972, and the workmen resorted to strike from 14th March 1972. Therefore, according to the applicants since the only demand in pursuance of which the Strike has been resorted to having already settled by the said Settlement, the strike is illegal and they have prayed for the pro--hibition thereof.
3. All these averments of the applicants have not been refuted by the respondent-Union. The only reply which the respondent --Union has made is that the strike has already been prohibited by the Government of Sind and as such the application has become infructuous. They state further that a Notification to that effect was expected to be issued very soon. The learned Representative for the applicants has, however, denied that the Government has prohibited the strike or has issued any Notification to that effect. Therefore, since the averments made by the applicants have not been dented by the respondent-Union, I find that this is a clear case in which the prohibition of the strike ought to be made.The strike is accordingly prohibits: and the workers to resume the work forthwith.
4. The legality or otherwise of the strike will be determined in the application under section 34 of the Indus--trial Relations Ordinance, 1969, filed by the applicant, when it domes up for hearing.