1. AWARD Shaffi Muhammad R. Akhund (Chairman).--In this application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 the applicants seek the following reliefs: (1) Declaration that the partial strike, go-slow, sit-down strike and cessation of work resorted to by the workers since 20th April, 1972, are illegal. (2) Declaration that the Memorandum of Settlement dated 3rd October, 1970, is legally binding on the parties. (3) Direction to the workers to maintain discipline, normal production and efficiency, and to allow the Management to perform its normal function without let or hindrance. The applicants are Art silk fabric manufacturing concern employing about 290 workers, while the respondent-Union is the Collective Bargaining Agent of their employees. The case of the applicants is that, on 3rd October, 1970, a Memorandum of Settlement was signed by both the parties iu the course of conciliation proceedings between them, which is operative for a period of 3 years i.e, till 30th September, 1973. According to the terms of that settlement, the respondent-Union was committed not to raise any financial demand or the one having financial implications during the operative period of the settlement. The respondent-Union had further undertaken, under the terms of the settlement, to co-operate in running the Mills efficiently and earnestly and thereby help the Management to overcome the crisis in the silk industry. The trouble seems to have strated with the nomination of the new Representatives of the Union on the Board of Trustees constituted under the provisions of Companies Profits (Workers* participation) Act, 1963, in the first week of April, 1972. According to the applicants, the said nomination was contrary to law, and the Union was informed accordingly by letter dated 7th April, 1972. The workers, however, started a campaign of indiscipline and rowdyism inside the Mills, with the result that the members of the staff were unable to perform their duties. When the balance-sheets duly audited and accompanied by the auditors* certificate were produced for examination before the reconstituted Board of Trustees, on 18th April, 1972, the Representatives of the Union insisted on personal check of books of accounts, which was contrary to the terms of section 23-B(10) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, as amended by Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 1972. The workers were not willing to accept the audited balance-sheets nor willing to refer the accounts for audit in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, but wanted the Management to unilaterally increase the quantum of profits and consequential increase in contribution of profits. The applicants informed the Union of the illegality of their action by their letters dated 19th April, 1972 and of subsequent dates. However, from 20th April 1972, the weavers started operating only two looms each instead of the normal number of looms allotted to them, with the result that one-third of looms were closed constituting an illegal partial strike. The applicants issued notice to the workers to call off the illegal strike and also kept the Directorate of Labour informed of the situation by letters and telegrams as the strike continued from day to day. The Assistant Director, Labour Welfare, convened a number of meetings, wherein the Representatives of workers assured him that they would call off the cessation of work and restore normal production, but they did not keep their promise. The officebearers of the Union started threatening of the staff and the care-taker of the Mills, and the workers also held a demonstration in front of the residence of the Managing Director and other Directors of the Mills on 12th May, 1972. The applicants further state that the partial strike, go-slow and cessation of work were resorted to without adopting the legal procedure, and during the operative period of the settlement dated 3rd October, 1970. Since these}illegal acts as well as other unlawful activities by the workers still continue, they have sought the reliefs stated above. The respondent-Union was served witn the summons, and appeared through its General Secretary on 18th May, 1972. Thereafter, the case was being adjourned from time to time, at the request of the respondents, for filing the reply statement, lt was adjourned on no loss than seven dates for hearing from 22nd May, 1972 to 26th September 1972, for this purpose. But, no reply statement was filed during the course of more than four months. On 26th September, 1972 none was present for the respondent-Union, nor was any application for adjournment made. Consequently, the matter was ordered to proceed ex parte. Mr. Rauf Tabani has sworn an affidavit on behalf of the applicants, reiterating the averments made in the application. He has also produced documents in support of his contention including the settlement dated 3rd October, 1970, the correspondence between the parties, the notices issued by the applicant to the respondent-Union pointing out their illegal acts and the letters and telegrams to the Labour Directorate informing them of the unlawful activities of the workers. Besides these documents, the Schedule of production has also been produced, which shows that the fall in production varied between 87 to 90 per cent, in the period from 4th May, 1972 onwards. Thus from the averments made in the application supported by the affidavit of the applicants* witness and the documents produced by him, which stand unrebutted, there can be no doubt that the workers have been indulging in unlawful activities without any cogent reason. The partial strike and cessation of work, and slowing down the normal production, have been resorted to not only without adopting the legal procedure but also during the operative period of the settlement dated 3rd October, 1970. In the concluding portion of the said settlement, the respondent- Union have assured the applicants of its co-operation in running the Mills efficiently and earnestly, and thereby overcome the prevailing crisis in the industry. But, in clear contravention of this solemn assurance, the workers have created a greater crisis for the applicants, as is evident from the Schedule of production. Consequently, I find that the applicants are entitled to all the reliefs they have sought, which are their rights guaranteed and secured and the law as well as under the settlement dated 30th October, 1970. The application is allowed accordingly.