1989 PLP 169 (PLC)

Ch. Khalid Farooq for Respondent. Date of hearing: 15th June, 1987. This is an appeal challenging the decision dated 27‑1‑1987 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 3, Lahore at Ferozewala, whereby the respondent has been directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.

2. The services of the respondent were terminated on 22‑1‑1982 with effect from 2‑2‑1982 on the ground that the mill had been closed. The closure of the mill took place on 1‑5‑1982 on the ground that a dispute had developed between the management and the Enemy Property Board about the sale of the property. A settlement was arrived at between the C.B.A. and the management on 6‑1‑1983, according to which, three months' basic salary was agreed to be paid to all the workers whose services had been terminated on account of the closure of the mills the case of the respondent is that the settlement is not effective. I have already held in appeals Nos. 271, 296, 273, 297, 295 and 272 of 1985 that the said settlement was not legal. According to the definition of settlement, a legal settlement is that which is arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings and includes an agreement between an employer and his workers arrived at otherwise than in the course of any conciliation proceedings where such an agreement is in writing, has been signed by the parties thereto in such a manner as may be A prescribed and a copy thereof has been sent to the Provincial Government conciliator and such other persons as may be prescribed. Conciliation proceedings can come into being if there exists an industrial dispute. Industrial dispute is defined in clause (xiii) of section 2 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, which reads as under:‑‑ "Any dispute or difference between employers and employers or between employers and workmen or between workmen and workmen which is concerned with the employment or non‑employment or the terms of employment or the conditions of work of any person and is not in respect of enforcement of any right guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law other than this Ordinance or any award or settlement for the time being in force." The manner of raising an industrial dispute is given in sections 26 to 32 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Such dispute comes to the Labour Court under section 32(1‑A) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. There was no dispute between the management and the workers nor for the resolution of such a dispute the settlement was arrived at. No charter of demands was served. The dispute of the management was with the Enemy Property Board and on account of that dispute the mill was closed without getting permission from the Court under Standing Order 11‑A of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. Application for permission was, no doubt, lodged in the Court but it was not pursued and was withdrawn after the settlement was executed. Permission may be obtained after IB the closure of the mills but obtaining of permission from the Court is necessary. Since no permission was obtained, the closure was not legal. The closure not being legal, the orders of termination of services of the workers were not legal. According to section 29 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, stage of conciliation starts where a party to any industrial dispute serves a notice of strike or lock‑out and delivers a copy thereof to the conciliator. This is not the case of the parties that either the C.B.A. gave any strike notice or the management served any notice of lock‑out. It is said that since the settlement was arrived at in the presence of Labour Department and the Assistant Director also signed it, the settlement was arrived at during conciliation proceedings. The mere fact that the Labour Department without any reference made to it intervened, would not be sufficient to show that the conciliation proceedings had been started. Section 29 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for ready reference is reproduced below:‑ "Where a party to an industrial dispute serves a notice of strike or lock out under section 26, it shall simultaneously with the service of such a notice deliver a copy thereof to the conciliator who shall proceed to conciliate in the dispute and, to the Labour Court:" Since the settlement was not arrived at during conciliation proceedings, it was necessary to send, as provided in section 2(xxiv), a copy of the settlement to the conciliator and the Provincial Government or such other person as may be prescribed. There is no evidence that a copy of the settlement was sent to the conciliator or the Provincial Government or to any other person as required by law referred to above. The settlement, therefore, has no legal force. Since, as mentioned above, the closure was without the permission of the Court, the orders of termination of services were not legal and thus are not sustainable and have been rightly set aside by the learned lower Court.

3. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed A.E./374/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.