1970 PLP 867 (PLC)

The case of the first party is that the second party entered 'into an agreement on 30‑6‑69, but they did not abide by the following terms of the agreement: ‑ "(1) The ad hoc relief will be paid at a fiat rate of Rs. 20‑00 per head to each and every worker of the Hotel and this will commence from the month of June 1969 and the arrears of April and May will be made available between 15th July to 20th July 1969 and, 15th August to 20th August 1969 respectively. If the overall financial `condition of the Company does not improve in due course ad hoc relief may be suspended with the consent of the Union." The first party prays for giving a direction to the second party for, implementation of the above term. The second party entered into appearance by filing a written objection in which they raised the question of maintainability of the present application under section 34 of the I: R. O. on the ground that there is no industrial dispute as it has not been raised, as per provisions of section 43 of the I. R. O. They further said that the financial condition of the second party has deteriorated and the terms could 'be implemented depending on the financial position of the firm. There was a negotiation between the parties during which the first party filed the present case. . The application should be dismissed on contest with costs. Points for determination in the present case are: ‑ (1) Whether the application a maintainable. (2) Whether the first party is entitled to get the benefit as claimed by them. Point No. 1.‑It has been argued by the learned Advocate for the second party that the application is not maintainable under section 34 of the I.R.O. since there is no valid dispute between the parties now. No industrial dispute has been' raised by the collective bargaining agent in the present case and as such, no dispute of that nature should be deemed to be in existence. As against this, it has been argued, that in the prescribed manner dispute could be raised by the collective bargaining agent. Section 34 of the I.R.O. is also a particular mode of raising dispute in the Court. On a scrutiny of the different provisions of the law particularly reading the sections 26, 28, 30, 32, 34 and 43 of the I.R.O. we are of the opinion that in matters of right a dispute could be raised in the Court under section 34 of the I.R.O. and it is also prescribed manner of procedure. In the present case it has beers stated that 'the first party has approached the Court on the basis of an agreement entered into between the parties on 30‑6‑

69. A simple reading of ' section 34 of the I.R.O. would clarify, the position to the effect that in the present case the first party has claimed the right that was secured to them by the said agreement or settlement and as such, this present dispute could be raised under section 34 of the I.R.O. independent of any other provisions. As such the application is maintainable. Point No.2.‑We have already quoted the relevant terms of the agreement. The last sentence of the term would show that ad hoc relief would be suspended by the second party with the consent of the Union. It is admitted in the present case that the payment of ad hoc relief was suspended before the consent from the Union was obtained. As such, though the financial condition of the second party has deteriorated as claimed by them, they are not legally justified in suspend ing the ad hoc relief without securing the consent of the first party. In that view of the matter we are to allow this application. Hence this case is allowed on contest sad it 'is awarded that the second party shall implement the term of the agreement entered into between the parties on 30‑6‑69, with effect from the date it has not been implemented by the second party. This award' shall come into force at once and the second party shall implement the award within 30 days from the date of this award. The members on consultation agreed with my above decision.