1970 PLP 50 (PLC)

2. Mr. Sbabani, the learned Representative for the appellant, has raised two points before me. I propose to dispose of these contentions separately.

3. It was very strenuously contended by Mr. Shahani, in the first place, that the Five Elected Representatives were not competent to raise the industrial dispute. In this connection, he made a reference to Rule 57 of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Rules, 1960. It reads as under:‑ "The notice of strike to be given by workmen‑ (i) in a public utility service, shall be in Form G, and (ii) in the case of an industry other than a public utility service, shall be in Form H, and every such notice shall be signed by the Secretary of the registered Trade Union of which such workmen are members, or where such workmen are not members of any registered Trade Union, by five representatives of the workmen (July authorised in this behalf at a meeting held for the said purpose.

4. The admitted position is, as would appear from the statement of Abdullah for the respondent, that the Five Elected Representatives were office‑bearers of the registered Trade Union. The learned Representative for the appellant contended that under Rule 57 of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Rules, 1960, the notice of strike could be given either by the General Secretary of the registered Trade Union or if there is no Trade Union by the Five Elected Representatives of the workmen elected for giving the strike notice. It is not necessary to decide this question for the purposes of the disposal of this appeal. Mr. Yousuf, the learned Representative for the respondent, pointed out that the Five Elected Representatives of the workmen did not give any strike notice in the present case. In this connection he relied on the Failure Certificate. A perusal of the Failure Certificate dated 25th May 1968, would disclose that conciliation proceedings had started on 29th April 1968, "on receipt of an information regarding existing of an industrial dispute, vide Pakistan Textile Mills Workers Letter No. Nil dated 29‑4‑1968". There is nothing in the Failure Certificate to suggest that any notice of strike was given by the workmen. It is within the power of the Conciliation Officer to start conciliation proceedings, in respect of public utility service, on an information that there is a pessibility of strike. I am of the view that the Failure Certificate was as issued not on the basis of any strike notice, but on the basis that the Conciliation Officer apprehended that some industrial dispute was in existence between the workmen and the Management. Under section 5(5) of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959, "Any party to whom a certificate has been issued under subsection (4) may make an application to a Court for adjudication and determination of the industrial dispute or any matter constituting such dispute".

5. The language of subsection (5) of section 5 is wide enough to empower any party, to whom a certificate has been issued, to make an application before the Court. The certificate in this case was issued to all the parties to the industrial dispute and to the Secretary, Labour Department Government of West Pakistan. As the certificate was issued to all the parties to the industrial dispute, which included the workmen as well, there was nothing wrong if the workmen instead of representing their case individually, elected five persons from among themselves to make an application before the Court.

6. In the second place, it was rightly contended by Mr. Shahani that the industrial dispute, as would appear from the certificate, issued by the Conciliation Officer, related to transfer of the workers from Pakistan Textile Mills Limited to Dyer Textile and Printing Mills Limited. The remark, as would appear from the Failure Certificate, of the Conciliation Officer runs as under:‑ "The Management stated that they have transferred their workers from Pakistan Textile Mills Limited, to Dyer Textile and Printing Mills Limited, both of which are under the same Management. The question of lock‑out, therefore, does not arise. The workers did not agree with above view of the Management and considered this action as lock‑out."

7. Mr. Shahani submitted that the learned Chairman of the Industrial Court did not permit him to put certain question to Shaikh Mohiuddin in respect of transfer the learned Chairman stated in the body of the statement of Shaikh Mohiuddin as under :‑ "Mr. Muhammad 13ux wants to agitate the point of transfer. This has been decided. Overruled."

8. The question of transfer was very important point relating to the industrial dispute. This could not be said to have been already disposed of so long as the industrial dispute was pending. Mr. Yousuf Khan, the learned Representative for the workmen, concedes that this point is the subject‑matter of the industrial dispute, which will be disposed of at the time when the main industrial dispute is taken up. I, therefore, hold that the learned Chairman should not have restrained the Representatives of the parties to lead evidence on the question of transfer of the workmen from one mill to another mill.

9. With this observation, this appeal is dismissed.