1977 PLP 323 (PLC)

Naeem Sultan Butt for Respondents. Messrs Longman Mills 14‑N, Gulberg II Lahore the manufacturer of Industrial Rubber Goods have brought the under consideration petition under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 against the Workers Union Longman Mills (Regd.), Lahore and Ass1stantrDirector Welfare Conciliation, Lahore praying for a declaration to the effect that legally no industrial dispute ex1sts between the petitioner and respondent No. i on the basis of the illegal demand notice served by the respondent No. 1 on the petitioner and that the respondent be restrained from acting upon the said illegal demand notice.

2. It is alleged that a settlement was signed between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 on 17 December 1973. The life of the settlement was for one year with effect from 15th November 1973. Respondent No. 1 terminated the settlement through notice dated 31st December 1974 and it was intimated in the said notice that new demands would be raised after two months. But the respondent No. 1 wrongfully served the notice of demand dated 24th February 1975 before the expiry of the aforesaid period of 2 months. The petitioner objected to this notice as being premature. Subsequently the respondent No. 2 asked the petitioner to participate in the Conciliation proceedings but the petitioner again objected to the competency of the alleged strike notice. According to the petitioner the demand notice, dated 24th February 1975 and strike notice dated 8th March 1975 were illegal and void for the following reasons " (a) Respondent No. 1 having agreed to serve the demand notice after 2 months in the notice of cancellation of agreement dated 31st December 1974 could not legally serve the demand notice on 24th February 1975 1. e. before the expiry of the period of ,2 months stated in the termination notice. (b) The demand No. 8 in the notice relates to matter guaranteed under law and as such cannot form part of the demand notice. (c) No strike notice has been served on the petitioner and as such the strike notice was illegal."

3. The respondent‑Union res1sted the petition and pleaded inter alia that the application was not maintainable as it was not for the enforcement of any right guaranteed under any law, settlement or award.

4. It was noteworthy that alongwith the main petition under section 34 the petitioner moved an application for stay order on which an ad interim stay was issued for maintaining the status quo. Stay application has also been vehemently opposed by the respondent‑Union. Arguments have been heard in respect of the preliminary objection raised by the respondent about the maintainability of the petition and also for the disposal of the stay application.

5. Section 34 enables an employer to apply to the Labour Court for the enforcement of any right guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law or any award or settlement. In the under consideration case the petitioner has alleged that a settlement was executed between the parties on 17th December 1973 and said settlement was to remain in force for a period of one year with effect from 15th November 1973. It is further alleged that notice for termination of the settlement was served by the respondent ?Union on the petitioner on 31st December 1974 and it was intimated in the notice that new demand would be raised after two months. It is therefore, to be seen as to whether by virtue of the settlement dated 17th December 1973 and the notice of termination dated 13th December 1974. the petitioner possesses any guaranteed right within the meaning of section 34 to the effect that the respondent‑Union should not raised any demand before the expiry of the period stated in the notice dated 31st December 1974.

6. Section 40 of the

1. R. O., 1969 pertains to the effect of date of settlement, award etc. It is provided in this section that a settlement shall be binding for such period as is agreed upon by the parties and if no such period is agreed upon for a period of one year from the date on which the memorandum of the settlement is signed by the parties to the dispute and shall continue to be binding on the parties after the expiry of the aforesaid period until the expiry of the 2 months from the date on which either party informs the other party in writing of its intention no longer to be bound by the settlement.

7. This shows that notice of termination is required only when no period is agreed upon by the parties for which the settlement is to remain binding. In a case where such period is agreed on by the parties the settlement shall tie binding for such period and in such an eventuality notice of termination of settlement it not required to be served. In Workers' Union v. The Trans‑Oceanic Steampship Co. Limited, Karachi (1968 P L C 341) it was held that if the period of time in a settlement is fixed by a contract, the contract will automatically lapse after the said period and no notice is required for its termination. Similarly in Trading Corporation of Pakistan Ltd., Karachi v. Employees' Union (1974 P L C Note 76 at p. 42) it has been held by the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal that where the operational period of settlement had been fixed by the settlement itself, no notice to determine the same was necessary. In the under consideration case as already stated, in the settlement dated 17th December 1973 it was clearly provided that the settlement would be for one year with effect from 15th November 1973. This means that the settlement according to the provisions of section 40 of the I. R. O., automatically came to end on 14th November 1974 and no notice was required for its termination. The notice which the respondent‑Union allegedly served on 31st December 1974 has no effect of extending the period of operation of the settlement.

8. In this view of the matter, the demand notice served by the respondent‑Union on the petitioner on 24th February 1975 cannot be considered to be premature and illegal. Con-Frequently there is no guaranteed right in this behalf in favour of the petitioner and hence the petition is not legally competent. The other two pleas that the strike notice has been received by the petitioner and that one of the demands l1sted in the demand notice is in respect of right secured by any law can be pleaded as defence it and when application under section 32(1‑A) is filed by the respondent‑Union but such pleas cannot tantamount to guaranteed right for the employer for bringing an application Under section 34 of the I. R. O.

9. In view of the above the under consideration petition is dismissed as being legally incompetent. The stay application is also dismissed and the ad interim stay order is accordingly vacated.