P L D 1962 (W (PLP)

KHAMISANI, J.--‑The petitioners in this case are a Trade Union of Pakistan Security Press Employees. They had given a notice for strike under the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959, on 3rd April, 1961. The conciliation proceedings as per the requirements of law started forthwith under section 5 (2) of the same Ordinance. A joint meeting of the parties to the dispute was held with the Conciliation Officer. The petitioners then gave a notice on 5th April 1961 for extending the date of strike upto 30th April 1961, the date for the strike in the previous notice being 18th April 1961. Another notice on 29th April 1961 was given under which the date for strike was extended upto 15th May 1961. The conciliation proceedings seem to have fallen through in that no settlement was arrived at on the questions of dispute. The petitioners, therefore, wrote a letter on 18th May 1961, after the last date fixed in their last letter for strike had expired, to respondent No. 1 for a certificate under section 5 (4) of the Ordinance that this writ petition was filed. It has been prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued against respondent No. 1 directing him to issue a certificate in terms of section 5 (4) of the Ordinance.

2. The points contended in this writ petition are :‑ (1) That proviso to, section 5 (4) of the Ordinance is not attracted in this case in that there was no mutual consent in respect of the time for the conciliation proceedings to be extended. The argument advanced is that respondent No. 1 was therefore bound to grant a certificate under section 5 (4) immediately after the expiry of 14 days from the date of the first notice of strike which in this case was 3rd April, 1961, and (2) That even if it be assumed that the extensions granted were in respect of both the date of strike as well as the date of conciliation proceedings, the last date fixed by the notices being 115th May 1961, the strike notice would be within the terms of section 18 (1) (a) and that respondent No. I, under these circumstances, was also bound to grant a certificate under section 5 (4) of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959,

3. For the purpose of deciding this writ petition, it is not necessary to go into question No. 1 raised by the petitioners. Even if it be assumed that the extension of time in respect of the last date of strike and the last date for the conciliation proceedings was mutually extended, it is conceded that the last date so fixed was 15th May 1961. It is also conceded for the purpose of computing the period envisaged in section 18 (1) (a); 3rd April 1961, the date ‑on which the first notice for strike was given, will have to be excluded. The learned Attorney‑General, who appeared for the respondents stated that by excluding the 3rd April 1961 from the time fixed for strike, according to the various notices given by the petitioners, the time upto 15th May 1961 would be within six weeks as required by section 18 (1) (a) of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance. This being the position, the learned Attorney‑General was of the view that the provisions contained in section 5 (4) of the Ordinance would be attracted and that respondent No. 1 should in law have granted a certificate for the disputes being taken to the Industrial Court. What he, however, contended is that after a lapse of time after 15th May 1961 it would not be worthwhile directing respondent No. I to grant a certificate under section 5 (4) of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959. We do not agree with the learned Attorney‑General on this aspect of the case as put forward by him in view of another admission made by him that there is no period prescribed in the Industrial Disputes Ordinance within which a certificate can be granted. It is obvious and it has been candidly conceded that a certificate can be granted at any time after the conciliation proceedings in respect of the disputes before the Conciliation Officer had failed. This being the position, we cannot see our way to dismiss the petition. The writ petition is consequently allowed with costs and a writ of mandamus is issued to the respondent No. 1 directing him to perform his duty imposed upon him by law under section 5 (4) of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959, and grant the certificate as envisaged to the petitioners for the matter being carried to the Industrial Court. S. B. Mandamus issued.