1. S. Z. AHMED (CHAIRMAN).-Tills is an application by the Bawany Industries Ltd., Karachi, formerly known as Bawany Woollen Textile Mills Ltd., Karachi under section 45 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, praying that the strike enforced by the respondent-Union should be .prohibited.
2. Briefly stated, the facts leading up to this application and presented by the applicant are that on 16-4-1970, the respondent-Union served a charter of demands on the applicants under section 26 of the Ordinance, the on the failure of a dialogue between the parties;, the applicants submitted an application. under section 34 of the, Ordinance on 22-4-1970 to this Court for the adjudication of the dispute arising from those demands that on 4-6-1970, the respondent-Union served a notice on strike under section 28 on the applicants, that in pursuance of the said notice, the workers went on one, hourly strike daily from 22-7-1970 to 24-7-1970 and that they resorted to a complete strike with effect from 25-7-1970. The strike has been continuing since that date.
3. The contention of the applicant-Company is that it is engaged in the manufacture of Cotton, Silk, Hosiery, Textile and 50 % of its products are exported to earn Foreign Exchange, that it pays Rs.
4. 28,100.00 daily as Capacity tax to Government on its installed spindles, that the notice of strike dated 4-6-1970, was given when the industrial dispute between the parties was already pending before this Court pursuant to the applicants'-- application under section 34 of the Ordinance (filed on 22-4-1970) thus making the' strike illegal, that by indulging in one-hourly strike between 22-7- 1970 and 24-7-[970, in pursuance of the strike notice dated 4-6-1970, the strike notice exhausted itself and, therefore, a fresh notice under section 28 was necessary from the respondent for the strike effected on 25-7-1970 and that the strike,if continued, will cause irreparable loss and damage to Government, to the applicant as well as to the striking workers themselves. Further, tile stand taken by the applicant is that the charter of demands, submitted by - the respondent. Union to the applicant-Company is in violation of the various Settlements/Awards which are in operation and the strike has been launched during the period of operation of those Settlements/ Awards. On the other hand, the plea of the respondent is that the charter of demands contains 31 demands which relate to better terms and conditions of employment and one demand is for the re- instatement of certain workmen and that, therefore, the applicant cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under sections 34 and 45 in regard to all those demands.
5. The facts that the respondent-Union submitted a charter of demands to the applicant on 16-4- 1970 which contains a number of demands of financial nature along with "one demand regarding the re-instatement of certain workers, that the notice of strike was served on the applicants under section 28 of the Ordinance on 4-6-1970, that the applicants export 50 % of their products and pay a Capacity tax of Rs. 28,100.00 daily to the Government and that there have been a number of Settlement Awards between the parties have not been controverter by the respondents. The main argument of the applicants in the case is that the respondent has raised a dispute over matters which have already been included in the various Settlement and Awards to which the respondent has been a party and that the strike launched by the respondent is not in accordance with the provisions of the I. R. O., 1969 and is, therefore, illegal.
6. It has repeatedly been held by this Court that in dealing with an application under section 45 of the Ordinance, the Court has at first to ascertain whether there is an ostensible basis for the application under section 34 of the Ordinance made by a party, and if it finds that a prima facie cane has been made out by the applicant in support of the application under section 34, it would proceed to dispose of the application under section 45 of the Ordinance on the view that it has a propel' foundation and is maintainable. In the present case, I find, a' as appears from the material presented in the pleadings of the parties and the arguments addressed by their representatives, that' an industrial dispute does exist between them arising from the charter of demands served by the respondent on the applicants on 16-4-1970. The question whether these demands are already covered by the previous Settlements and Awards, as asserted by the applicants or they are not so covered, as averred by the respondent, is one which cannot be gone into deeply and exhaustively at this " stage while considering 'the present application under section 45 and it will receive its due treatment at the time the applicants' application under section 34 of the Ordinance is taken up for disposal. Similarly, determination of the question whether the strike resorted to by the respondent is legal or not must be postponed to that time. Mr. Shafiq Qureshi, the learned Representative of the respondent-Union takes the plea that the Settlement dated 16-2-1970, is not a Settlement in the true sense and that all the previous Settlements on which the applicants rely are not binding on the respondent Union. However, ex facie the settlements seem to be in order, the respondent being a party to them. Again, the true legal character and effect of these settlements cannot be examined in detail at this stage and the matter will call for proper scrutiny during the pro--ceedings in relation to the pending application under section 34 of the Ordinance.
7. On the view that I have taken above, I find that this application under section 45 of the Ordinance is maintainable having regard to the facts stated by the parties in their pleadings in connection with the application under section 34 of the Ordinance made by the applicant-Company and which is awaiting disposal by this Court: Until that application is disposed of, there seems to be no justification for the continuance of the strike which has caused unemployment of about 2400 workers and which has been continuing since 25-7-70 without bringing the parties to an amicable settlement and without doing any other good to them. This tension between them with the concomitant economic harm that is being caused to them as well as to the State cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely in the interest of industrial peace as well as in their own interest.
8. The loss to the employer and to the State is clearly irreparable and the striking workers are not in a better position.
9. I, therefore; find every justification for prohibiting the strike and accordingly I direct that the respondent-Union shall discontinue and call off the strike with immediate effect.
10. Announced in open Court.