' My present order seeks to dispose of an application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 filed by Messrs Shams Textile Mills, Chiniot Limited petitioner against the People's Union Shams Textile Mils Limited, Chiniot through its General Secretary.
2. In short, the facts of the case are that Messrs Shams Textile Mills Limited petitioner is a public Limited Company and falls within the purview of Industrial Establishment. There are about 203 workers employed in the Establishment and Mr. Shamim Ahmad Bajwa is its Labour Officer, who is fully conversant with the facts of the case and is also competent to file the present case on behalf of the Management.
3. The workers of the establishment have formed a Union which is known as "People's Union Shams Textile Mills Limited Chiniot" and Sufi Muhammad Ayub is its General Secretary. The Union has got the status of Collective Bargaining Agent. The respondent-Union served the Establishment with a demand notice consisting of 17 demands and also a strike notice, whereupon conciliation proceedings were started between the parties in the presence of the officials of the Labour Department. It is further plea led that the Management raised certain legal objections in writing with regard to the legality of the demands. Due to the stubborn and inflexible attitude of the respondent-Union, no settlement could be reached between the parties and the officials of the Labour Department, in the absence of the Management, issued a failure certificate on 25-10.1976.
After the issuance of the failure certificate, the workers of the establishment, at the instigation of the respondent-Union commenced illegal strike on 25-10-1976 at about 8 p. m. It is alleged that the said strike was against law and facts and was consequently illegal. The Management, therefore, challenged the legality of the aforesaid strike under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before the learned Labour Court No, 3, Lyallpur on 26.10-76, along with an application under section 45 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance for obtaining a prohibitory order requiring the workers to call off the strike. This application was dismissed by the Court vide its order dated 3-11-1976. After the dismissal of the aforesaid application of the Management, the respondent-Union continued its strike which still continued till the filing of this petition. The statutory period of 30 days under section 31 of subsection (4) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 wired on 23-11-1976. It is alleged that after the expiry of the statutory period the Governor of the Punjab, vide Notification dated 23-11-1976, in exercise of the power conferred on him under subsection (2) of section 32 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, ordered to prohibit the strike of the workers employed in the establishment on the ground that the continuance of the strike was causing serious hardship to the community and public interest demanded that the same should be prohibited with immediate effect. The Governor of the Punjab also referred the demands of the Union to the Labour Court for adjudication in accordance with law. The plaint further states that the respondent-Union was duly intimated with regard to the aforesaid prohibitory order issued by the Governor of the Punjab through the media of newspapers, Cinema Slides, by affixing notice on the Notice Board of the Establishment and gates of the Mills and the Colony, by loudspeakers, by beating of drums and through registered letters etc. The Management also intimated the prohibitory order of the Governor to the local administration as well as the officials of the Labour Department. The respondent-Union in spite of the intimation and prohibitory order of the Governor did not call off the strike. It is contended that this act of the respondent-Union is in contravention of the order made under section 32 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The continuance of the strike in contravention of the order of the Governor constitutes the strike as illegal under section 4.6
(c) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Management contends that the illegal strike by the respondent-Union has violated the guaranteed and secured rights of the employer for which enforcement of the same has been sought. It has, therefore, been prayed that the strike commenced by the respondent-Union and the workers be declared as illegal and the workers be directed to resume duties.
4. The respondent has resisted this petition. It has however, been admitted that the learned Labour Court No, 3, Lyallpur allowed the respondent-Union to continue the strike on 3-11-19/6. It is also admitted that on 24-11-76 the Management intimated the prohibition of strike by the order of the Governor on loudspeaker. It has however, been pleaded that the workers were not allowed entry on the Mills gate and some `Goondas* who bad the support of the Management did not allow the workers to resume their duties, The petitioner has produced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his case. Abdul Hamid Bajwa Timekeeper P. W.1 has deposed from the record of the Mills that on 25-10-1976 the strike commenced in Shams Textile Mills and it was called off under the order of the Court on 3-12-1976. During the aforesaid period, the workers remained absent from duty on account of strike. They were, therefore, marked absent in the attendance register. On 23-11- 1976, the Governor was pleased to order the calling off the strike. This order of the Governor was communicated to the workers through a notice having been pasted on the notice board, through loudspeaker and Cinema Slide. He goes on to state that the workers were al o informed by beat of drum. The workers despite intimation did not attend to their duties. They continued raising demands at the instigation of the Union. In the cross-examination it has been suggested that some forgeries were made in the attendance register but the witness has successfully supported his version from the record. He has produced the original record in the Court. Shamim Ahmed Bajwa, Labour Officer P. W. 2 has also reiterated the facts alleged in the petition. He has brought on record the demand notice Exh. P. 1, copy of notice Exh. P. 2, failure certificate, Exh. P. 3 and the copy of the petition Lab. P.
4. The copy of the order of the Labour Court is Lab. P.
5. He states that the workers could continue with the strike for a period of 30 days. This period concluded on 23-11-1976. The continuance of the strike after that was illegal. On 23-11-1976, the Governor notified that the strike be called off. The copy of the order has been produced as Exh. P.
6. The Joint Director, Labour Welfare Headquarter, Lahore also informed the petitioner and the respondent-Union about the prohibitory order of the Governor. The copy of notification is Exh. P. 7, and the letter Exh. P.
8. He further states that on 24-11-1976 he informed the workers by putting a notice on the notice board. The copy of the notion has been produced on the record as Exh. P.
9. The Management also communicated the calling off of strike by the Governor through publication in the newspapers Nawa-i-waqt and Imroze. The copies have been brought on record as Exh. P. 10 and Exb. P.
11. The copy of the Gazette notification was also sent to the respondent through registered cover letter on 25-11-1976. The copy has been produced as Exh. P. 12 alorgwith two postal receipts Exh. P. 13 and Exh. P.
14. Intimation was also made through Cinema Slide and loudspeaker. The witness states that the loudspeaker has been installed in the mosque situate in the Mills Colony. The workers of the C. B. A.
Had full knowledge of the notification. The witness deposes that the workers did not attend to their duties because they continued to press their demands. The petitioner was then compelled to move the learned Labour Court No, 3, Lyallpur. My learned predecessor ordered on 30.11-76 that the strike be called off immediately and this order of the Court be widely publicised. In the cross- examination, it is admitted that on 24-11-1976, Sufi Muhammad Ayub, General Secretary of the respondent-Union gave an application to P. W. 2 for showing him the copy of the order issued by the Governor. He also admits his order recorded on the application Exh. D. I. He states that after some time he informed the General Secretary about the notification issued by the Government. He denies that Neclam Cinema, Chiniot had remained closed on account of some defect in its machinery. He also denies that on 28-11-1976 Kazim Hussain Shah and his colleagues remained present in the Mills and on 26-11-1976 Allah Ditta Head Watchman did not allow the C. B.A. To enter the Mills premises. In rebuttal Sufi Muhammad Ayub, D. W. 1 has deposed that the strike commenced legally on 25-10-19 6 The Management did not call for any meeting with the C. B. A. He admits that on 24-11-76 the Management made an announcement through loudspeaker that the Governor had ordered the calling off of the strike. He also admits that he found on the notice board that the Governor was pleased to issue the aforesaid notification. He insisted on the delivery of the original notification. He also admits that be continued to press the Management to accept their demands and asserted that they had a right to remlin on strike, unless their demands were accepted. He also admits that the Managing Director had informed him that the Governor had prohibited the strike from 23-11-1976. He goes on to state that on 26.11-1976, the entry of the office- bearers of the Union was prohibited In the Mills premises. He further deposes that after 3-12-1976 ho had been falsely involved in criminal cases. In the cross-examination he admits that when the workers were not allowed entry in the Mills premises, he did not lodge any complaint against the Management about the lack-out etc. He also did not lodge any complaint with the police authorities that the workers were not being allowed to resume their work by the goondas backed up by the Management. He further admits that on 24-11-1976 the Labour Officer had informed him that the strike had been ordered to be called off by the Governor.
5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the material placed on the record. It is an admitted fact that the strike was called off by the Governor on .23-11-1976 by a notification. The General Secretary has also made unequivocal admission that he had been informed by the Labour Officer and the Joint Director that the strike in dispute had been prohibited by the Governor of the Punjab.
The only plea put up in defence is that the workers had been prohibited entry in the Mills. The respondent-Union has not produced Allah Ditta, Head Watchman in defence nor evidence has been brought on record that Kazim Hussain Shah and his colleagues prevented the workers from resuming their work. It is on the record that publication was made in the newspaper and Cinema Slide was also shown duly intimating the workers that the strike had been prohibited. The learned counsel for the petitioner bad contended that after publication of notification by the Governor, no separate communication was even necessary. He has relied upon PLD 1958 Dacca 189. It has been held as under :- "Where there is no provision in an Order or Ordinance which requires that in addition to publication in the Gazette, the subject-matter of a particular notification must also be separately communicated to the person or class of persons who may be affected by the same it is not obligatory on the part of Government to employ any other means of communication to the class of persons concerned then by publishing the notification in the official Gazette. It must accordingly be presumed that the existence of a notification so published is known to persons concerned."
6. It is an undisputed proposition of law that a strike to be legal must be in conformity with the provision of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 i. e. It must be followed by a notice etc. Under section 26(1), (2) and (3) of the Ordinance. In the instant case the workers remained on strike and there was cessation of work continuously for 30 days. Since the respondent went on a strike in the beginning in conformity with the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, therefore, it could not be held to be an illegal strike. After the notification prohibiting the strike by the Governor, the strike from 23.11-76 to 3-12-76 was therefore, illegal. It violated the provisions of sections 32, 33, 45 and 46-A of the I. R. 0,, 1969. I am, A therefore, convinced that in spite of the due intimation of the prohibition order of Governor, the respondent-Union and workers of the establishment did not call off the strike and this act of the respondent-Union was in contravention of an order made under section 32 of the I. R. O., 1969. This clearly constituted the strike as illegal under section 46-C of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
7. On this view of the matter, the strike in dispute is thus declared as illegal. The workers have already resumed duty and, therefore, the remaining prayer has become redundant. File be consigned.