1977 PLP 665 (PLC)

‑

S. 45 (1)‑Strike‑Prohibition of --‑ Strike, a legitimate and some times unavoidable weapon in hands of labour‑‑Hasty and indiscriminate use of such weapon, however, should be discouraged

Strike likely to result in loss of Government revenue and taxes and also deprive Government of foreign exchange for want of export of goods‑Held, such strike involves material economy and interest and hence prohibited. H. A. K. Warsi for Applicant. JUDGMENT This is the application made on behalf of the applicant under section 45 of I. R. O., 1969 alongwith the main application under section 34 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 praying that this Court would be pleased to prohibit the partial strike commenced on the instigation of the respondent, in the establishment of the applicant Management since 21st August, 1976. The application was opposed by other side who amongst other legal objections stated that this Court had no jurisdiction to prohibit the legal strike resorted to by the C. B. A. I have heard the arguments of learned representatives of the parties. In this connection my attention has been drawn by learned representa tive for the applicant Management to the provisions of section 45(1) of

1. R. O. 1969 by which a strike or lock‑out in pursuance of Industrial dispute which had already commenced and was in existence, a Labour Court on an applica tion under section 34 could order in writing to prohibit continuance of the strike or lock‑out. Mr. Brohi the learned representative for the respondent/workers admitted in specific and candid terms that there was an industrial dispute raised on behalf of the workers and that the conciliation proceedings had failed. Similarly it is admitted fact that strike notice under section 26 (3) was also given to the applicant Management. Therefore the strike on its own showing has been commenced in connection with industrial dispute. Therefore this Court has got power under section 45 (1) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 to prohibit its continuance. The respondent have admitted that the strike was in connection with industrial dispute. Although the learned representative of the respondent challenged the jurisdiction of this Court to issue any prohibitory order in his written objections but at the time of arguments Mr. Brohi conceded that section 45 (1) does permit the Labour Court to discontinue the strike but only in rare cases such as in the interest of national interest etc. for which the Authority to be used by the Labour Court most cautiously. Having conceded that this Court could pass the prohibitory order as prayed by the applicant the only point for determination would be whether the prohibition would be in the national interest. According to the applicant they have been exporting their goods to foreign countries for which the Government earned the foreign exchange. Similarly in case of no production in their industry the Government would also be deprived of the Excise Duty and thereby there will be great loss of Government exchequer. Mr. Brohi the learned representative of the respondent also conceded that one of the demands giving rise to this notice was the re‑instatement of office‑bearers of the Union whose services were terminated by the applicant. He further goes on to admit that the office‑bearers whose services were terminated by the applicant have filed their individual applications under section 25‑A in this Court, which are still sub judice in this Court. Therefore since the matter is sub judice it will be unreasonable for the Union to compel, and coerce the applicant to re‑instate the office‑bearers whose services were terminated by the applicant. The arguments advanced by Mr. Brohi are untrammelled by any Authority. Whereas Mr. Warsi the learned Representa tive for the applicant has relied upon the ruling reported in 1961 P L C 389 in which it was held that the launching of the strike immediately after the failure of conciliation, was unjustified and the workmen would not be entitled to any wages for the period of strike. It was further held that there was no scope for holding that any strike was half justified and half unjustified. Taking all these concomittent circumstances into consideration I find that though the strike is a legitimate and sometimes unavoidable weapon in the hands of Labour, the hasty and indiscriminate use of this weapon should be discouraged especially when the ousted office‑bearers have already filed their cases before this Court which are sub judice. Since Mr. Brohi conceded that such prohibitory order could be passed by the Court in case the matter involves the national economy and interest I find that there cannot be any better case in which the national economy and interest is involved because ostensibly in case of strike there will be no work resulting in loss of Government's taxes, revenue and exchequer. Similarly in case there is no export of goods not only that the contracts and orders would be cancelled but the Government would also be deprived of the benefits of foreign exchange. Therefore whichever the case is looked at the strike in my opinion does involve national economy and interest. Under these circumstances I allow the application and prohibit the continuance of strike staged by the workers. Application allowed