This is a complaint under sections 54 and 55 of the industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for awarding punishment to the accused on the ground that they had committed a breach of the decision made by this Court on 31-7-1974.
2. In July 1974, the Proprietors of Power Looms Factories of Ghulam Muhammadabad, Lyallpur filed 130 petitions against their workers under section 34 of tree Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for a declaration that the workers bad gone on an illegal strike. My learned Predecessor, acting under section 45; prohibited continuing of the strike in an interim order.-- The contention of the employer was that the workers had gone on illegal stake. The contention of the workers was that it was an illegal lock-out. The decision of my Predecessor was that neither it was an illegal lock-out nor an illegal strike. However, in the concluding para. Of the decision the workers were directed to resume duty.
3. The present complaint has been filed by Haji Wali Muhammad and 129 others who are Proprietors of Power Loom Factories in Ghulam Muham--madabad Colony, Lyallpur. The accused are the Officers of the Trade Unions of the said Power-Looms. The allegation against the accused is that they did not obey the order passed by his Court on 31-7-1974, because the workers did not join their duties in accordance with the direction of this Court.
4. It is an admitted fact that no industrial dispute was raised in the prescribed manner by the C. B.
A. No demand notice was served on the employer under section 26 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. No strike-notice was given in this case. No conciliation proceedings were held uudersection30. Obviously, there was no industrial dispute between the parties. A Labour Court is competent to take; cognizance of the, matter under section 45 of the Ordinance, when a strike or lockout in pursuance of an industrial dispute has already commenced and is in existence. If no industrial dispute has commenced or is in existence the Labour Court cannot take any action under section 45 of the Ordinance. I am of the firm view that the A Labour Court was not competent to give any directions to the workers to resume duty. The order was without jurisdiction. If any Arson has diso--beyed an order which is without jurisdiction he cannot be said to have committed an offence. A void order does not exist in the eye of law and no question of its disobedience arises. The accused have, therefore, committed no offence if the workers had not resumed duty.
5. The complaint does not disclose commission of any offence. Accor--dingly, it is dismissed.