1976 PLP 553 (PLC)

Naeem Sultan Butt for Respondents, Messrs Longman Mills, 14-N Gulberg-I1, 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 Assistant Director, Welfare (Conciliation), Lahore praying for a declaration to the effect that legally no industrial dispute exists between the petitioner and respondent No. I on the basis of the illegal demand notice served b 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 17-12-1973. The life of the settlement was for one year with effect from 15-11-1973. Respondent No. 1 terminated the settle ment through notice-dated 31-12-1914 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 21-2-1975 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 24-2-1975 and strike notice dated 8-3-1975 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 31-12-1974 could not legally serve the demand notice on 24-2-1975 i. e. before the expiry of the period of 2 months stated in the termination notice. (h) 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 way illegal.

3. The respondent-Union resisted the petition and pleaded inter aha 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 is 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 17-12-1973 and the said settlement was to remain in force for a period of one year with effect from 15-11-1973. It is further alleged that notice for termination of the settlement was served by the respondent-Union on the petitioner on 31-12-1974 and it was intimated in the notice that new demands would be raised after two months. It is, therefore, to be seen as to whether by virtue of the settlement dated 17-12-1973 and the notice of termination dated 31-12-1974 the petitioner possesses any guaranteed right within the meaning of section 34 to the effect that the respondent-Union should not raise any demand before the expiry of the period stated in the notice dated 1-12-1974.

6. Section 40 of the I. R. O., 1969 pertains to the effective date of settlement, award etc. It is provided in this section that a settlement shall be binding for such period a9 is agreed uoon 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 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 agree upon by the parties for which the settlement is to remain binding. In a case where such period is agreed upon by the parties the settlement shall be binding for such period and. in such an eventuality n.) notice of termina tion of settlement is required to be served. In Workers' Union v. The Trans Oceanic Steamship Co. Ltd., Karachi (1969 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 flag 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 17-12-1973 it was clearly provided that the settlement would be for one year with effect from 15-11-1973. This means that A the settlement, according to the provisions of section 40 of the

1. R. O., auto matically came to an end on 14-11-1974 and no notice was required for its termination. The notice, which the respondent-Union allegedly served on 31-12-1974, 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 respendent-Union on the petitioner on 24-2-1975 cannot be considered to be premature B and illegal. Consequently 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 not been received by the petitioner and that one of the demands listed in the demand notice is in respect of right secured by any law can be pleaded as defence if and when an application, under section 32 (1-A) is filed by the respondent-Union but such pleas can not tantamount to a 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 order is accordingly vacated.