1970 PLP 655 (PLC)

As the workmen had already gone on strike and the strike was in existence at the time when the aforesaid application under section 34 of the I. 'R. O., 1969 was made to the Court and the same is still continuing, the Management of the aforementioned Mill therefore also moved this Court through the present application under section 45 of the I. R. O., 1969 wherein it has beer; prayed that the Court may prohibit the continuance of the strike. This application has been opposed by the, respondent Union. In the application of the Management as also in the Reply Statement of the Workers' Union, some allegations and counter allegations have been made, which at this stage do not require to be discussed or decided to the instant case, all that we have to see is as to whether any ground does exist which may justify the issuance of a propitiatory order under section 45 of the I. R., 0. 1969, directing the respondent‑Union to call off the strike. The following facts are either admitted or the same are undisputed:

(1) The respondent‑Union issued a demand Notice to the Management of the applicant Concern under section 26 of the I. R:O 1969 on 27‑1‑1970, (2) Strike notice under section 28 of the said Ordinance was issued by the respondent‑Union to the Management of the applicant Concern in. pursuance to aforesaid demands on 13‑2‑1970, which according to the Management of the applicant Concerns, was received by them on 19‑2‑1970. (3) The workers; however, did not go on strike after the expiry of 21 days Notice period. They actually went on strike on 11‑5‑1970. The learned Representative of the applicant Concern main tains that the workers should have gone; on strike immediately on the expiry of the Notice period if they were keen to go on strike and. the fact that they had waited for more than 2 months after the expiry of notice period before actually going on strike entails the conclusion that the respondent‑Union had either given up the demands on the' basis of which they had served the Management with the strike notice or in any case they had become less serious to press these demands. According to him, the respon dent‑Union should have then re‑observed the necessary formalities before going on strike on 11‑5‑1970. It is, on the other hand argued on behalf of the respondent Union that the silence of the respondent‑Union for 2 months or more after the expiry of the strike notice period did not mean that they had given up the demands or the dispute came to an end but that in fact the Union gave further opportunity to the Management to reconsider their attitude towards the demands of the Union. Be that what it may, it will not be proper at this stage to give a decision on the merits of the case, but one thing is clear from the facts narrated above that the respondent‑Union did not go on strike immediately after or within a reasonable period of the expiry of the strike notice period which in turn shows that the urgency of the matter for which workers could resort to this extreme action on their part, had considerably minimized as for one reason or the other, the workers did not consider it worth while to resort to strike immediately or soon after the failure of the conciliation talks. This may and can be construed as, a good ground to prohibit the continuance 'of the strike, in the interest of industrial ‑ peace and harmony. In our view, the balance of convenience; which always matters in such like cases, also appears to be in favour of the applicant Concern. The result is that we accept the request of the Management and issue a direction to the respondent‑Union to discon tinue the strike forthwith. It may be clearly understood that this border does not and will not even in the' least, effect the merits of the case which is before us for adjudication and determination under section 34 of the I. R. O., 1969. It is also to be understood that we cannot decide, in these proceedings anti at this stage, as to whether the strike in question is legal and illegal, Orders accordingly