1990 PLP 686 (PLC)

‑‑‑Ss. 2(xxiv) & 40(2)‑‑‑Settlement comes to an end on expiry of period agreed to by parties but benefits derived from settlement continue till parties enter into negotiations and reach a conclusion‑‑‑Demand notice served by C.B.A. after expiry of period fixed in settlement serves purpose of notice to terminate settlement where service of such notice is necessary‑‑‑Such demand notice becomes negotiable ‑‑‑Demand notice though involving financial implications would not he illegal. Ch. Muhammad Hanif Dogar for Appellant. M.A. Javed for Respondent. Date of hearing: 25th June, 1989. This is an appeal emerging from the order dated 2‑4‑1989 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Sargodha Camp at Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petition brought by the despondent under section 34 if the Industrial Relation Ordinance, 1969, wherein fresh demand notice involving financial implications given by the appellant union was challenged, was accepted.

2. A settlement was arrived at between the parties on 18‑4‑1988, wherein the period for which the settlement was to remain effective was fixed. On 1‑3‑1989 afresh demand notice was served by the appellant upon the respondent involving financial implications. The parties were negotiating on the demand notice but before some decision could be arrived at, the respondent challenged it under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The ground on which the demand notice was challenged was that since no notice as required by section 40(2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, was served by the appellant terminating the previous settlement, the settlement existed and fresh demand notice could not be legally given. On the expiry of the period of settlement agreed to between the parties, the settlement comes to an end but the benefits derived from the settlement continue till the parties enter into negotiations and reach a conclusion. But so far as the settlement itself is concerned, it expires on the date on which the period for which it was made comes to an end. Although no notice was served by the appellant, yet notice was served afterwards by the respondent and the parties are under negotiations. The other thing is that in cases where service of notice to terminate a settlement necessary, the demand notice, if it is served after the expiry of the period fixed in settlement serves the purpose of such a notice and the demand becomes negotiable. So the demand notice served by the appellant was not illegal since it was given after the expiry of the period of settlement agreed to between the parties. The demand notice, therefore, can be negotiated. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. A.E./693/Lb. P Appeal disposed of.