1970 PLP 319 (PLC)

Abdul Majid Qureshi for petitioners. Abdul Majid for Respondent No

1. Respondent NO. 2 in person. This is an application by five elected Representatives of P. W. R. Accounts Welfare Association, 10‑A, The Mall, Lahore, under sections I1 and 12 of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968, for adjudication and determination of demands mentioned in Annexure 'B' attached to the application. It is alleged that respondent No. 2 Assistant Director, Labour Welfare, (Conciliation), Lahore Region, Lahore, on receipt of copy of notice of strick given to the Management, failed to hold conciliation proceedings between the parties within the prescribed period and failed to issue Failure Certificate. In view of this, the petitioner has prayed that an award may be given on the demands mentioned in Annexure 'B'. Respondent No. 2 has denied receipt of copy of the strike notice. Respondent No. I Chairman, Pakistan Western Railway, has raised objection, that as no Failure Certificate had been issued to the petitioners, nor any conciliation proceedings had ever been held, the petitioners have no locus stand) to raise the instant dispute. I am not aware of any law, which entitles the petitioners, who claim to be the Representatives of the employees of the West Pakistan Railway Accounts Welfare Association to move this Court without obtaining Failure. Certificate. If as a matter of fact, the Assistant Director failed to perform his functions under the law, the Industrial Court cannot force him to perform such functions. If he is at all guilty and has contravened the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance or the rules made thereunder, action can be taken against him under section 35(2) of the Ordinance, under which he can punished with fine, which may extend to Rs.

500. However, I cannot take any action against him. The question that arises in the instant case is, as to whether, the application filed by the petitioners under sections 11 and 12 of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968, for the adjudication and determination of their demands is tenable and they have logs standi to raise the industrial dispute. There is only one method in which an industrial dispute can be raised and brought before the Industrial Court and that is contained will section 6, subsection (8) of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968. It runs thus: " Any party to whom a certificate has been issued under subsection (7) may make an application, within thirty days of its issue, to a Court for adjudication and determination of the Industrial Dispute or of any matter constituting such dispute, and if no such application is made within the said period, the dispute shall be deemed to have cases to‑exist." Since in the instant case no Failure Certificate has been issued so far, the application does not lie. Mr. Abdul Majid Qureshi, Representative of the petitioners, argued that in view of the definition of the term "Industrial Dispute" contained in section 2(1) of the Ordinance, the Industrial Court is competent by virtue of section 11 (1) (d) to adjudicate and determine the demands and give award. Section 11(1)(d) of the Ordinance is to the effect, that the Court shall exercise and dorm such other powers and functions as are or may be conferred or imposed upon it by or under this Ordinance nowhere says, that even if no Failure Certificate is issued the Conciliation Officer, the Industrial Court must adjudicate by and determine the demands raised as 3 dispute, under sections 11 and 12 of the Ordinance. The words of the sections are quite explicit. The Court can exercise and perform only those powers and functions, which are conferred upon it by the Ordinance. Even it the Industrial Court, for the purpose of adjudicating and determining any industrial dispute in a civil Court, in view of section (11)(1)(d), it can perform only such functions and exercise such powers, as are conferred or imposed upon it by or under the Ordinance. Mr. Abdul Majid Qureshi could not point out any 'provision of the Ordinance, whereby the applicants have been empowered, irrespective of the fact, whether a Failure Certificate h been issued or not, to bring the instant application. Sections 11 and 12 of the Ordinance, in my opinion are of no help to the petitioners. I, therefore, hold that the application is misconceived and is hereby dismissed.