1972 PLP 148 (PLC)

Mahmood Abdul Ghani for Accused Nos. 1, 2 and

4. HIDAYAT HUSSAIN (CHAIRMAN).‑Complainant Mumtaz Alam Durrani alleges that his services were terminated by tire Accused on 20th October 1970 during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings before the Conciliator. The Accused were charged to the effect that they terminated the service of the com plainant through order dated 20th October 1970 during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings and that they refused to continue to employ the complainant on the ground that he was an officer of the Trade Union. They faced trial under sections 53 and 60 of tire Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The summary procedure prescribed for warrant trial was adopted in this case. The Accused deny that any conciliation proceedings were pending on 20th October 1971 or that they terminated the services of the Complainant on the ground that he was an office bearer of the Trade Union. According to them the re organization of the organization was contemplated long before the Union was formed and the termination of ' the services of the complainant resulted on account of retrenchment due to re‑organization. Points which rise particularly in this case are:‑ (a) Whether the conciliation proceedings were pending. (b) Whether the Accused terminated the services of the complainant for his being an officer of the Trade Union. My findings on the above points are as follows:‑ (1) In Negative. (2) Not necessary. The conciliation proceedings were not pending on 20th October 1970, because admittedly the strike notice was given on 15th September 1970 and the Conciliator issued his letter on 17th September 1970. If the period of 21 days of strike notice is counted from that date it expires on or before 8th October 1970. Mr. Mahmood Abdul Ghani has rightly pointed out that up to that tinge section 30 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 did not permit any extension ref time taken in the conciliation proceedings. Section 30 was amended on 17th October 1970 and in view of that provision the Conciliator could not extend the time even with the consent of the parties. It is admitted before me that on 15th October 1970 when the matter was fixed before the Conciliator the accused were not, represented. Form this Mr. Ghani wants me to infer that they had refused to participate in the conciliation proceedings. On the other band Mr. Abdul Majeed wants me to hold that in the eyes of law they shall be deemed to have taken part in the proceedings in my opinion the contention of Mr. Ghani is correct. If a party does not take part in the proceedings on a particular date it cannot be deemed to have taken part in subsequent proceeding unless matter on record justifies inference to the contrary. The position, therefore, is that on 20th October 1970‑conciliation proceedings were not pending. In this view of matter it is not necessary to consider the second point. Accused are acquitted of the charges.