1984 PLP 2382 (CLC)

ABDUL HAYEE KURESHI, C. J.‑Consequent to an industrial dispute between Karachi Shipyard and Engineering Works Limited on the one side and Karachi Shipyard Workers Union on the other side, some conciliation proceedings were taken up but the parties through their respective agents agreed to have their disputes and differences sorted out by an arbitrator. Mr. A. R. Siddiqui, Secretary of the Labour Department in the Government of Sind was appointed as arbitrator. The said arbitrator upon bearing the parties submitted an award. In the meantime proceedings under section 32 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance were pending before learned Single Member of the National Industrial Relations Commission. The member had fixed some date of hearing but it appears that no party appeared before him. The member knew about the reference to arbitration and he passed an order stating as follows :‑

"It seems that the parties have not turned up today thinking that due to the settlement of disputes they were no longer required to appear before me . . . . a letter be addressed to Mr. A. R. Siddiqui, Secretary, Labour Department, Government of Sind, requesting him to send a certified copy of award together with the statement of the parties regarding its acceptance, so that the award be endorsed, adopted and made Rule of the Court by me in order that the Award be deemed to be the award of the Commission. The Secretary be also requested to intimate the date from which the award is to operate and the period for which it is to operate. After the receipt of the abovementioned documents further appropriate order in respect of the industrial dispute will be passed. The parties need not be summoned. The case be put up before me immediately on receipt of the documents from the Secretary, Labour Department, Government of Sind." In pursuance of the above order the award made by Mr. A. R. Siddiqui, the arbitrator was submitted to the learned single member of the National Industrial Relations Commission. Mr. Khalid Ishaque makes a grievance that after the receipt of the award by the member of the Commission he should have complied with the provisions of subsection (4) of section 32 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. This provision reads as follows;

"(4) The (Commission, or as the case may be, the Labour Court) shall, after giving both the parties to the dispute an opportunity of being beard, make such award as it deems fit as expeditiously as possible but not exceeding (thirty) days from the date on which the dispute was referred to it; Provided that the (Commission, or as the case may be, the Labour Court) may also make an interim award on any matter of dispute; Provided also that any delay by the (Commission, or as the case may be, the Labour Court) in making an award shall not affect the validity of any award made by it." The above provision required the learned member of the Commission to hear both the parties to the dispute and make such an award. Perhaps the learned member thought that since an award has already been made he is not bound to hear the parties but had only to ditto the said award. To that extent the learned member was in error because if the law requires notice to given, the provisions to that extent are mandatory. Mr. Khalid Ishaque has also invited our attention to the case of Mansab Ali v. Amir and J others (P L D 1971 S C 124). The Supreme Court is of the view that the order made without opportunity of hearing was void, ab initio and all subsequent proceedings were illegal. The action by the single member was challenged before the Full Commis sion and the Full Commission by slightly different process of reasoning came to the conclusion that it was not necessary to issue notice to the parties and the single member of the Commission did not act with any error. The adoption of the award by the single member without hearing was confirmed although one paragraph of the award was remitted for reconsideration of the learned single member of the Commission. No doubt such order for reconsideration was passed by consent. We are of the view that on account of non‑compliance with the requirement of subsection (4) of section 32 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance this award has not been legally adopted by the Commission. In these circumstances we grant the relief to the extent that the award shall now be reconsidered by the National Industrial Relations Commission after giving notice to the parties. Since the respondents have not contested there shall be no order as to costs. M. B. A. Case remanded.