DECISION This is an appeal against an award of the learned Presiding Officer of Sind Labour Court No. It, Karachi, dated May 18, 1973, whereby the learned Labour Court allowed one month's wages as bonus for the year 1971 and also wages for the period of strike. The proceedings against the appellant, were ex parte, as the appellant had failed to appear before the learned Labour Court. 2.
Mr. H. A. K. Warsi, the learned Representative for the appellant, contended in the first place that the awaid in respect of bonus is based on no evidence. There is the affidavit of Mr. Habib-uriehman, who is the General Secretary of the Union in support of bonus, as well as of wages for the strike period. Mr. Warsi contended that a perusal of the affidavit of Mr. Habib- urrehman would cisclose that be had not stated that the appellant concern had made profits in the year 1971, much less huge profits. The affidavit of Mr. Habib-uriehman consists of 7 paragraphs, ln Paragraph 1, he has stated that he is the General Secretary. In Paragraph 2, it is stated that "the present joint application under section 32(1-A) of I. R. O., 1969 was submitted before this Hon'ble Court by both the parties . . . ." In Paragraph 3, it is stated that the object of filing the application was to have an award in respect of the demands of the workers. Paragraph 4 is important. It is stated in this paragraph that the Union had complied with all the requirements of law before it resorted to strike.
In Paragraph 5. it is stated that the Union had raised only two demands, but the respondent (appellant before me), did not agree to settle these two demands with the result that the workers had to go on strike. Paragraph 6 runs as under :-- "That the demand for bonus for the year 1971, and payment of wages for the period workers remained on strike, i.e. 29-2-1972 to 17-3-1972 have to be adjudicated upon by this Hon'ble Court as per joint request of the parties made in their application under section 32(1-A) of I. R. O., 1969."
3. Paragraph 7 is the last paragraph, which runs as under "That unless the prayer made in the application under section 32 (1-A) of I. R. O., 1969 is granted the applicant and all workmen shall be seriously prejudiced."
4. It is clear from the affidavit of Mr. Habib-urrehman, the General Secretary of the Union, that there is not a word about the profit for the year 1971, much less about huge profits. In the words of Cornelius, C. J., in National and Grindlays Bank Limited (1), the learned Labour Court has been guided mainly by sympathetic speculation with practically no evidence on the question of bonus. There are a number of cases of the Supreme Court of Pakistan which are not necessary to cite, in which it had been held that an award based on no evidence is no award. I would therefore set aside the award on the question of bonus.
5. On the second question, Mr. Warsi contended that there is no justification for giving wages for the period that the workers were on strike. Right of strike has been recognized in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Illegal strike means "a strike declared, commenced or continued otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance". Right of strike has been recognized and if the strike is not illegal, I do not see why unless there be any special reason the workers be not granted wages for the period that they were on strike. At any rate, no material has been brought on the record of this case to justify refusal to grant wages for the period of strike. The General Secretary has clearly stated that he had complied with all the formalities before going on strike. There is nothing on the record to show that the strike was illegal, ln these circumstances, I would maintain the award, so far as the grant of wages for the period of strike is concerned. (1) 1961 PLC 1013