| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1973 SLG 3023 = 1973 SLD 3023 = 1973 PLC 47 |
Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal
Application No. 55 of 1972, decided on 28th July 1972.
Presented By: Shaffi Muhammad R. Akhund, Chairman, F. A. Khan and Kassam Usman Kandawala, Members
Mahmood A. Ghani for Applicants. Liaqat Ali for
Respondents.
Application No. 55 of 1972, decided on 28th July 1972.
Presented By: Shaffi Muhammad R. Akhund, Chairman, F. A. Khan and Kassam Usman Kandawala, Members
Mahmood A. Ghani for Applicants. Liaqat Ali for
Respondents.
REHMAN METAL INDUSTRIES, KARACHI
VERSUS
WORKERS' UNION
Law: Industrial Relations Ordinance, (XXIII of 1969)
Section: 43
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 43---Strike---Prohibition of---Strike resorted to on basis of demo d contrary to operative settlement - Strike continuing ---Prohibitory order Issued pending determination of legality of strike under S. 43. ORDER SHAFFI MUHAMMAD R. AKHUND (CHAIRMAN).---In this appli cation under section 45 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the applicants seek prohibition of strike which had con tinued for 100 days on 29th June 1972, when the application was made. The case of the applicants is that they had entered into a Settlement, on 2nd July 1971, with the respondent-Union which is the Collective Bargaining Agent of their Establishment. Accord ing to the Clause lit of the said Settlement, the Union had re cognised the fact that there were less than 50 workmen employed in the applicant Factory and as such the provisions of various Labour Laws were not applicable to them. It was further agreed that the Union would not raise any demand involving financial Implications for the Management till the operative period of the Settlement which was to remain In operation till 30th June 1973. In spite of this Settlement, the respondent-Union served a fresh Notice under section 26 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1,969, on 16th January 1972, containing 2 demands. There was again a Settlement with respect to one Demand, on 2nd February 1971, between the applicants and the respondent-Union. Thus, the only demand that remained was the-same as had been already Agreed upon in Clause 3 of the Settlement dated 2nd July 1,971. However in pursuance of that demand, the respondent-Union served a Notice of…