1. Deputy Director, Labour Welfare (Conciliation), Lahore has submitted this report under section 46-A of the I. R. O. With the prayer that the illegal strike staged by the workers of Ravi Rayon Limited, Kala Shah Kaku with effect from 12th September 1974, may be ordered to be called of.
2. The Reporter was directed to serve notices on the parties for today. The Reporter and counsel for the employer are present. No--body has appeared to represent the Workers' Union. Statement of the Labour Officer who was entrusted with the notice for service on the President and General Secretary of the Union has been recorded. He has stated that he could not find them despite best efforts. In this connection he approached the Resident Magistrate, Ferozewala who told him that warrants of arrest against the President and General Secretary of the Union have been issued and that they are not traceable. From the statement of the Labour Officer and his report Exh. P.
2. I am satisfied that the President and General Secretary of the Union have deliberately avoided the service of the notice. I have heard the parties present before me. Their statements have also been recorded. Mr. Fiaz Muhammad, Reporter appearing as his own witness has proved his report under section 46-A of I. R. O., 1969, and testified to its correctness. He has stated that on 12th September 1974, he had the last conciliation meeting with the parties. The Union wanted the re--instatement of 9 dismissed workers whose appeals are pending in the Labour Court. He has further deposed that in a previous settlement dated 15th August 1973 (Copy P.5) the Union had dropped this demand in view of the pendency of the cases for re-instatement in the Court. The said settlement is still in operation as no notice for its termination was served by either of the parties. In cross- examination he admitted that the strike notice given by the Union to the employer was not in Form 'U' as required by Rule 75 of the Punjab Industrial Relations Rules, 1973. The statement of Mr. Umar Alvi, Personnel Officer of the Mills is also to the same effect. The settlement dated 15th August 1973, (Copy P. 5) was for a period of one year as is clear from the con--cluding paragraph of the said settlement Mr. Fiaz Muhammad, Deputy Director, Labour Welfare and Umar AM are unanimous that no notice for its termination was issued by either party to the other. Section 4 (2) provides that "settlement shall be binding for such period as is agreed upon by the parties, and if no such period is agreed upon, for a period of one year from the date on which the memorandum of settle--ment is signed by the parties to the dispute and shall continue to be binding on the parties after the expiry of the aforesaid period. Until the expiry of to months from the date on which either party informs the other party in writing of its intention no longer to be bound by the settlement---. Since no notice for discontinuing the operation of the settlement was served by either party to the other after 15th August 1973, therefore, the settle--ment continues to be binding on the parties. According to section 46 (d) a strike is illegal if it is declared, commenced or continued during the period in which a settlement or award is in operation in respect of any of the matters covered by a settlement or award. 1n the instant dispute the main demand of the Union is the re-instatement of the workers. It figures at No. 1 in the charter of demands. The Deputy Director, Labour Welfare has reported that ---crux of the problem rested on the, re-instatement of 9 Workers mentioned in Demand No. 1 of the charter of the demand. This demand is covered by settlement dated 15th August 1973, (Copy P-5) whereby the Union had dropped this demand. In the said settlement this demand was settled as following "Conditional Re--instatement of Nine (9) Dismissed Employees.
3. This demand was dropped by the Union because of the fact that the cases of the nine persons are pending in the Court and will be decided according to law.--- Since the said settlement is still in operation and the strike has been commenced in respect of the matter covered by the settlement, therefore it is illegal.
4. It is also noteworthy that the strike notice was not given in Form ---U--- as required by Rule 75 of the Punjab Industrial Relations Rules, 1973. Section 43 of the I. R. O., 1969, provides that no industrial dis--pute shall be deemed to exist unless it has been raised in the prescribed manner by the Collective Bargaining Agent or the employer. The requirements of this section having been expressed in the negative language are mandatory. According to section 46 (1) (a) strike is illegal if it is declared. Commenced or continued without giving a strike notice in the prescribed manner to the other party to the dispute. The notice of strike given by the Union to the employee in this case does not conform to' the requirement of law and the rules and is, therefore, illegal.
5. For all the foregoing reasons the Union is hereby ordered to call of the strike forthwith.