DECISION This is an appeal against an award of the learned Presiding Officer of Labour Court No. V, Karachi, dated August 8, 1973, whereby the learned Labour Court dismissed the application of the appellant on the ground that there was no illegal strike. The facts giving rise to the appeal briefly put are these.
2. The appellant's Company is a dealer in tea. They particularly do packing of tea and for that they have different Packing Machines of different sizes, which they operate according to the need of the market. On 31st January 1973, the appellants closed down 1/2 lb. tea Packing Machines and 1/4 lb. tea Packing Machines due to accumulation of stock and desired to start 2 oz. and anna Packet Machines. To that effect, they had also put a notice on the Notice Board of the Company and directed the workers numbering about I0O, to work on 2 oz. and anna Packing Machines. Under the rules then existing, the Company was required to send notices in Form 'K* to the Labour Director. This had been produced by the appellant and have not been challenged in the cross-examination of the witness producing these documents.
3. Mr. Zamirul Hasan, the leamed Representative for the appellant raised many points, which I propose to dispose of separately. The learned Representative contended: (1) That there is no evidence to bear the conclusion of the learned Labour Court that there was any lay-off by the appellant-company; (2) That there is nothing on the record to establish that the production was normal ; and (3) That on the other hand, the conclusions of the learned Labour Court prove that there was at least partial strike,.
4. Mr. Zamirul Hasan for the appellant-company stated at the Bar that it is not the desire of the Company to take any step for illegal strike. Even persons found guilty for illegal strike have not been dismissed from service of the Company. It is stated that the object was that such action may not be repeated by the workexs of the Company. 5. lt is not the case of the workers as would appear from the statement of the General Secretary that the Company had resorted to retrenchment, as they were transferring all their machines to Wazirabad. In this connection, reference may be made to Exh. 4-A, appearing at page 99 of the Lower Court Record. This is mentioned as Exh. 6-A in the statement of the General Secretary. It was a reply by the General Secretary, M. Sarfraz Baig Zulfi, to the charge-sheet given by the Management, to l2 workers for misconduct that they had gone on an illegal strike. Exh. 4-A is dated 2nd February 1973. It is noteworthy that there is no reference to the transfer of machinery to Wazirabad. Had that been the case, it would have no doubt mentioned at the earliest in reply to the charge-sheet, ln this connection, reference may also be made to the cross-examination of the General Secretary. He stated as under:-- "The Management had deputed the workers of half pound and quarter pound machines to work on two ounce machines and they did work on two ounce machines." This statement does not support the conclusion of the learned Labour Court that there was a lay-off.
6. There ir no basis for the conclusion that the production was normal. In this connection, reference may be made to Paragraph 18 of the affidavit of Muhammad Shaft |Saleh, Manager of appellant-company. It runs as under :-- "Ihat the production records is also annexed herewith marked *G*. . .** 7. It is noteworthy that annexure 'G' is not on the record. There is annexure 'H' at page 91 of the record of the learned Labour Court, showing machines closed due to workers on strike on the period ending 28th February 1973. I would hold that the conclusion of the learned Labour Court that there is no evidence to justify the conclusion that the work was normal, is not ruled out from the evidence on the record.
8. Mr. Bashir-uddin, Labour Officer, visited the factory on 8th March 1973 at 10 a.m. His report is on the record of the learned Labour Court. It is Exh. 7-B, at page 269. He stated in his report that six persons were sitting idle. On the other hand, Form 'K* sent by the appellant-company, which is at page 261 of the record of the Labour Court, would show that it gives the number of workers, who were on strike on that date, as only about four. This was sent on 8th March 1973 through registered cover. That this is so, is borne out by the letter of the same date addressed to the Director, Labour Welfare, 520-Talpur House, Nazrul Islam Road, Karachi.
9. The statement in the award that Charter of Demands was followed by strike-notice dated 23rd February 1973, which is still pending, is not supported by the statement of the General Secretary. Mr. M. Sarfraz Baig Zulfi, General Secretary stated that, "In February we served a notice of strike which we had withdrawn during Conciliation Proceedings."
That there can be short strike also is supported by a decision of Dacca High Court--1972 PLC 190 at page 201, In that case, some workers had gone for a short period to take tea. The High Court came to the conclusion that an illegal strike need not be 228 PAKISTAN LABOUR CEASES Duration of strike is immaterial so long as1^5 it is|for a very long period, cessation of work.
10. Lastly, it was contended that the Union had not challenged the documentary evidence filed by the appellant-company, nor made any attempt to rebut the same. This is so. There is nothing in the evidence of the General Secretary to throw any doubt on the documentary evidence filed by the appellant-company. I would hold that the workers had resorted to illegal strike. A strike to be legal must be in conformity with the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called the Ordinance), i. e. it must be followed by a notice under section 26 (1), (2) and (3) of the Ordinance. Admittedly, the notice under section 26(3) of the Ordinance was withdrawn B during the conciliation proceedings.
Moreover, the notice of strike was given in February 1973 and the workers ceased to perform their normal duties from 31st January, 1973.
11. For the reasons given above, I would set aside the award of the learned Labour Court. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.