P L D 1964 (W (PLP)

This is an appeal under section 12 (4) of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance LV3 of 1959, hereinafter called the Ordinance against the order of the Industrial Court dated the 27th February 1963, whereby the Court dismissed the application of the appel lant under section 5 (5) of the Ordinance for adjudication and determination of the dispute on the ground that the requisite certificate under section 5 (4) [was not issued by the Conciliation Officer within the period prescribed therein.

2. The only facts that are necessary to state in order to dispose of this appeal are these The conciliation proceeding before the Conciliation Officer started on the 28th March 1962. The last meeting between the appellant and the respondents was held before the Conciliation Officer on the 2nd May 1962. The Conciliation Officer issued a failure certificate on 2nd May 1962. The certificate was served on the appellant on the 7th May 1962. The appellant made an application on 29‑5‑1962, before the Industrial Court under section 5 (4) of the Ordinance for adjudication and determination of the dispute.

3. The relevant portion of the conclusion of the Industrial Court reads as under " After going through the various rulings cited on either side and bearing in mind the various principles referred to by Maxwell in his book on `Interpretation of Statutes'. I have reached the conclusion that the provisions of section 5 (4) are mandatory and since the failure certificate in each of these disputes has been admittedly issued by the Conciliation Officer beyond the statutory period laid down in section 5 (4) of the Ordinance it becomes invalid and consequently the application filed under section 5 (4) of the Ordinance which depends for its validity on the validity of the failure certificates, also becomes invalid." The relevant provision which requires consideration is sub‑clause 4 of section 5 of the Ordinance. It reads as under "If no such settlement is arrived at, in the case of a public utility service within fourteen days, and in any other case within twenty eight days, of the commencement of the conci liation proceedings, the Conciliation Officer shall, at the close of the said period, issue a certificate to the parties to that effect Provided that the period of conciliation proceedings may be extended by mutual consent of the parties to the dispute." It would appear from a perusal of the order of the Industrial Court that it came to the conclusion that the failure certificate has to be issued within 14 days in the case of a public utility service and in any other case within 28 days. A close reading of section 5 (4) of the Ordinance would disclose that the Legisla ture has prescribed two periods of limitation, the one for the settle ment of the dispute and the other for the issue of the failure certificate. In the above quoted provision of law the `commas' must be given due importance. For the settlement of the dis pute between the employers and the employees the Ordinance contemplates that the dispute must be expeditiously settled in the case of public utility service within 14 days, in any other case within 28 days. The period of settlement could no doubt be extended by mutual consent. The important words so far as~ the issue of failure certificate by the Conciliation Officer is con cerned are "at the close of the said period." The question of issuing a failure certificate by the Conciliation Officer arises only when the dispute between the parties could not be settled. The limitation for the Conciliation Officer to issue the failure certificate starts "at the close of the said period" namely, 14 days or 28 days as the case may be. In case the period has been extended by mutual consent it will be at the close of the extended period. The words "at the close of the said period" are very significant. It is not necessary to elaborate the meaning of the word "close". Ordinarily the word "close" means "end". If we substitute "end" for "close" the meaning of the phrase will be much more clear. It would mean after the expiry of the period prescribed for the settlement of the dispute between the parties.

4. In Pakistan Security Press Employees' Union v. Labour Commissioner and another (P L D 1962 Kar. 662), the question for consideration before the Division Bench was as to whether any time limit was prescribed under section 5 (4) of the Ordinance for the issue of a failure certificate. The learned Attorney General who appeared for the respondent in that case conceded that no period was pre scribed for the issue of a failure certificate. The Division Bench on the concession made by the learned Attorney General came to the conclusion that section 5 (4) did not prescribe any time limit for granting the failure certificate.

5. The reasoning of the Industrial Court and the argument of Mr. Ali Ahmad Fazeel, the learned Advocate for the appel lant and that of Mr. Mukhtar for respondent No. I proceeded on the assumption that the period of 14 days in the case of public utility service and in any other case 28 days applies to the Conciliation Officer within which he had to issue the failure certificate. I am of the view that the period prescribed for the issue of the failure certificate by the Conciliation Officer is at the end of 14 days or 28 days as the case may be or in case the said period had been extended it would be after the expiry of the extended period. The period of 14 days or 28 days is prescribed only for the conclusion of the Settlement and not for the issue of the failure certificate. In this connection I would make a reference to the case of The Queen v. The Commissioners for Special Purposes of the Income‑tax (21 Q B D 313). In that case the ques tion before Lord Escher, M. R. was the interpretation of the words "at the end of the year" occurring in the Income‑tax Act. It was held in that case that the expression "at the end of the year" did not mean at any time after the end of the year, or, on the other hand, within any limit of time generally applicable, but as soon after the end of the year as having regarding to the circumstances of the particular case, is practicable by the use of due exertions. I would hold that the expression "at the close of the said period" would mean soon after the said period.

6. It is not necessary to examine the reasoning of the Industrial Court or the argument of Mr. Ali Ahmad Fazeel and Mr. Mukhtar Ahmad as the same has proceeded on the assump tion that the period of 14 days or that of 28 days applies to the Conciliation Officer.

7. Lastly, I would make a reference to the argument adopted by the Industrial Court that there is a similarity between the language of section 5 (4) of the Ordinance and section 15 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947‑There is no similarity between the two as under section 15 of the Act the Industrial Tribunal had to give its award to the appropriate Government within a period not exceeding three months. The words "within a period not exceeding" are restrictive and would denote that the award had to be given within the period prescribed and not as in 5 (4) of the Ordinance at the close of the period.

8. For the reasons given above, I will allow the appeal and hold that the failure certificate was validly issued.

9. Mr. Mukhtar Ahmad for Respondent No. 1 has no objection to Mr. Fazil's appearance for the appellant. K. B. A. Appeal accepted.