1. AWARD By present application under section 34 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, applicant is seeking adjudication to prohibit the strike, resorted to from 18th October 1972, after declaring the same as illegal. The facts are that respondent as Collective Bargaining Agent gave a Charter of Demands dated 26th May 1972, to applicant. As the result of negotiations, a memorandum of settlement was concluded between the parties on 6th June 1972, in presence of Conciliator and Deputy Director, Labour Welfare. This settlement was binding upon the parties for a period of two years i. e. up to 5th June 1974. One of the terms of the settlement was that no financial or non- financial demand upon the Management would be raised during the subsistence of the settlement. By virtue of this settlement it had also been agreed that no Union activities would take place within the premises of the Mill and no speeches would be delivered within the premises of the Mill. Grievance of the applicant is that in spirit and practice this Settlement was not honoured by the respondent and its sanctity was broken. In order to coerce the Management to yield to further demands, machines were stopped, window panes were broken and roofs of the rooms were opened. Ultimately by letter dated 9th August 1972, the same benefits were demanded as had been given by Messrs Dawood Cotton Mills Ltd. to their workers. On 29th August 1972 workers stopped the clearance of Export Cargo worth Rs. 4,00,000 from the Mill premises. Workers also staited threatening slow down in the work and Gherao. The Management of the Mill was therefore, constrained to move an application with No. 771/72, under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before IInd Sind Labour Court and also filed an application under Order XXXIX, rule 1 of C. P.C. On 13th April 1972, by an interlocutory order IInd Sind Labour Court directed the workers not to resort to the illegal means, complained of. Respondent-Union then threatened to resort to strike, therefore Management of the Mill moved Misc. Application No. 219/72, before IInd Sind Labour Court, wherein respondent gave an undertaking that workers shall not resort to strike or any illegal activities. Even then workmen resorted to an illegal strike without complying with the provisions of section 26(1) or 26(3) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 from 18th October 1972, which is still continuing. That out of 4000 workmen, substantial number of them have called off the strike and resumed their duties. Still about 1000 workmen have refused to call of the strike and resume duties, in spite of appeals. The Deputy Director Labour Welfare was informed about this and Form 'K* was sent accordingly. That it is the right guaranteed and secured to the applicant under the provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 that workers should not resort to strike save in accordance with law. Since this right has been infringed, adjudication by Court was necessary. In spite of due service respondent did not contest the matter, which proceeded ex parte. In support of the matter, applicant has filed affidavit of Mr. Umer son of Haji Qasim, the Director of Mill and also produced copies of the Charter of Demands given by respondents, memorandum of Settlement, the letter of appreciation dated 7th June 1972, sent by respondent, letter sent by applicant to Director Labour dated lst July 1972, letter dated 9th August 1972, whereunder fresh demands were made, telegram sent by applicant to authorities dated 30th August 1972, letter dated 30th August 1972, sent by applicant to Labour Minister, Order passed by IInd Sind Labour Court dated 13th September 1972, and order passed by IInd Sind Labour Court dated 12th October 1972. The evidence led by the applicant has gone un-challenged and stands unrebutted. In view of the facts that there is no evidence in rebuttal, the evidence led by the applicant is to be accepted as correct. Applicant has duly proved that Settlement dated 6th June 1972, between the parties still is in operation. That by virtue of this Settlement the respondent was precluded from raising any financial or non-financial demands upon the Management, for the period of two years i. e.t up to 5th June 1974. That no notice as required under section 26(1) or 26(3) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was given by the respondent before resorting to strike dated 18th October 1972, which is still continuing. 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 law i.e.y after adhering to the provisions of section 26(1) or 26(3) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. I, therefore, find that respondent during the subsistence of the Settlement could not raise any fresh demand nor respondent could resort to strike without fulfilling the requirements of section 26(1) or 26(3) of Industrial Relations Ordinance,1969. I also find that it is the right guaranteed and secured to the applicant that workers should not resort to an illegal strike. Consequently I declare the strike as illegal and prohibit the same. The workers who have not so far resinned their duties are directed to report for duty forthwith. Application is allowed with costs. Award accordingly.