1978 PLP 326 (PLC)

2. The facts of the case are as follows: All the eight accused were engaged as workers by the above said firm and were working in the factory belonging to the said firm. They were also office‑bearers of the Workers' Trade Union namely, "The Mazdoor Union". The Union raised an industrial dispute by submitting to the Management a charter of demands. The conciliation proceedings, which thereafter followed, ended in a failure. After the failure of the said proceedings, the Union proceeded on strike from 21st August 1976 There were about one hundred and seventy‑six workers working in the said Factory out of which about hundred and ten proceeded on strike. The Management filed an application before the said Labour Court, invoking its jurisdiction under section 45(1) of the I. R. O. and the latter by an order dated 4.9‑1976, prohibited the continuance of the said strike. Section 45 of the

1. R. O. is reproduced as under: "

45. Powers of Labour Court and Tribunal to 'prohibit strike, etc.‑(1) When a strike or lock‑out In pursuance of an industrial dispute has already commenced and is in existence at the time when, in respect of such industrial dispute, there is made to, or is pending before, a Labour Court an application under section 34 the Labour Court may, by an order in writing, prohibit continuance of the strike or lock‑out. (2) When an appeal in respect of any matter arising out of an industrial dispute is preferred to a Tribunal under section 38 the Tribunal may, by an order in writing, prohibit continuance of any strike or lock‑out in pursuance of such industrial dispute which had already commenced and was in existence on the date on which the appeal was preferred" The workers were informed about the said Order of the Labour Court through two notices published respectively in Newspapers "Millat" (Gujrati) and "Hurriyat" (Urdu) on 7th and? 8th September, 1976, but despite the propitiatory Order issued by the Labour Court, the workers at the instigation of the accused, ignored the said order and continued the sttike. 1t has now been contended on behalf of the complainant, that continuance of the strike was illegal according to the provisions of clause (c) of subsection (1) of section 46 of the

1. R. O. The said provisions are reproduced hereunder: "

46. Illegal strikes and lock‑outs.‑(1) A strike or lock‑out shall be illegal if: (c) it Is continued in contravention of an order made under section 31, section 33, section 45 or subsection (3) of section 45‑A ;" Since the commencement or continuance of illegal strike constitutes unfair labour practice, hence the present complaint.

3. At the very subset, Mr. Ali Amjad, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused has raised a preliminary objection that since there was no application in respect of the said industrial dispute, as required by section 45(,1) of the I. R. O., either pending or filed before the Labour Court at the time when the Order prohibiting the continuance of the said strike was passed thereby, the Order was without jurisdiction and a nullity in the eyes of law, and as such the continuance of strike in contravention of the said Order did not make the strike illegal. Consequently, there was no unfair labour practice committed by the accused.

4. Looking at section 45 of the I. R. O.; it requires the fulfilment of the following three conditions before an order prohibiting a strike or a lock-out can be passed by the Labour Courts (i) The existence of an industrial dispute, (ii) the existence of a strike or a lock‑out in pursuance of such dispute, 4 and (iii) an application in respect of such industrial dispute, either pending or filed before the Labour Court. In the instant case, although the first twos conditions were satisfied, the third was not, because admittedly, there was no application either filed or pending before the Labour Court in respect of the Industrial Dispute. The application that was made by the Manage ment to the Labour Court had only invoked its jurisdiction to pass an order under section 45 of the I. R. O., therefore it was not an application in respect of an industrial dispute as required by the said provisions of the I. R. O. As the presence of three conditions, just described, was a mandatory requirement of law, the order passed by the Labour Court was without jurisdiction and as such, a nullity in the eyes of law. "There can be no doubt" said Mohammad Akram, J., in Hafeezuddin v. Mian Khadim Hussain, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Lahore and another (P L D 1965 Lah. 439) "That an order without jurisdiction is no order at all in the eye of law and is not worth the paper on which it is written". Also see Ghulam Haider v. Bhaco (P L D 1962 Lab. 326).

5. That being the position, the continuance of strike despite the Order passed by the Labour Court did not make the strike illegal so as to bring it t, within the mischief of section 16(I) (e) of the

1. R. O. because the worker were not bound to obey an order passed without jurisdiction.

6. Under the circumstances, the preliminary objections raised on behalf of the accused are accepted and the accused are acquitted. Order accordingly