1. AWARD By present application, adjudication is being sought for declaring the strike resorted to from 18th October 1972, as illegal and prohibiting the same. The facts are that the respondents served a notice dated 25th May 1972 accompanied with a Charter of Demands, upon the applicant.
2. Negotiations were conducted between the applicant and the respondents who were the Collective Bargaining Agent, through the good offices of the Deputy Director, Labour and Deputy Secretary of Ministry of Labour. As a result of these negotiations a settlement was concluded between the parties and a memorandum dated 11th August 1972, was drawn and signed. This settlement was binding upon the parties for a period of two years. Grievance of the applicant is that though by virtue of referred settlement, Union was committed not to raise any financial implications on the Management for two years from 11th August 1972, still respondent did not stick to this settlement Members and office-bearers of the respondent- Union started instigating the workers not to perform the duties, and also to cause damage to cloth, raise slogans, beat the drums, resort to go- slow and illegal Gherao. That due to this instigation the workers of the Mill ultimately resorted to an illegal strike from 18th October 1972, which is stiil continuing. Even no notice under section 26(1) or under section 26( ) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was served by the respondent-Union upon the applicant before going on the strike. In spite of appeals the workers have failed to call off the strike. The Director of Labour Welfare has been duly informed of this illegal strike and Form *K' was also sent by the Management. That it is right guaranteed and secured to the applicant under the provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 that workers will not resort to strike, save in accordance with the law. Respondents though duly served did not contest the application and the matter proceeds ex parte. In support of the matter, applicant has filed an affidavit of Mr. Muhammad Ali, Mill Manager and has also produced the copy of the memorandum of settlement dated 11th August 1972. Thus before this Court there is only evidence led by the applicant side. Since there is nothing in rebuttal, the evidence adduced by the applicant is to be accepted as correct.
3. Hence it is duly proved that a binding settlement had been arrived at between the parties dated 11th August 1972, by the virtue of which respondent-Union stood committed not to raise any financial demand on the Management for a period of two years. This also stands proved that during the subsistence of this settlement, in order to defeat the same. Workers of the Mill were instigated by the members and office-bearers of Union to resort to illegal acts and ultimately this instigation led to an illegal strike from 18th October 1972, which is still continuing. It is also evident that this strike was resorted to without giving notice as contemplated by section 26(1) or section 26(3) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Hence 1he strike resorted to is illegal. It is the right guaranteed and secured to the applicant under the provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 that workmen will not resort to strike, save in accordance with law. Since this right of <4 the applicant has been infringed, it requires enforcement. The strike is therefore declared illegal and prohibited. The workers are directed to resume their duties forthwith. Application is allowed with costs. Award accordingly.