1984 PLP 1495 (PLC(CS))

Date of hearing : 3rd March, 1982. This revision is directed against the orders passed by the learned Presid ing Officer, Labour Court No. 3, Lahore at Ferozwala, dated 29th April, 1978 whereby the miscellaneous petition of the petitioner for the decision of the preliminary objection before hearing the case on facts was dismissed. The facts are that the petitioner management had previously gifted watches to the workers for extra‑profits accruing in the year 1975. The union raised a demand that gifts be allowed for extra‑income for the year 1976 also. This demand was not accepted and the matter came before the Labour Court which is still pending. There were three legal objec tions for the decision of which petition was moved. They are that charter of demands, dated 9th March, 1977 was given which was followed by a strike notice, dated 11th April, 1977, and that the Assistant Director (Conciliation) had filed the strike notice. The union submitted the same demands again which could not be done; that the strike notice not being in accordance with law is not valid ; and lastly that the demand notice is incompetent because no demand containing financial implication could be raised in the subsistence of the existing settlement. So far as second objection is concerned, the real defect in the demand notice has not been pointed out. It is not disclosed how the demand notice is in violation of section 28 of the I. R. O. So, it was necessary to disclose it before entering upon the facts of the case. So far as objections Nos.1 and 3 are concerned they are not purely legal and they cannot be decided without adducing evidence. Objection No. 1 is that previously a demand notice was given which was filed by the Conciliator. This is a question of fact if in reality any earlier demand notice was given and that the same was filed. Objection No. 3 is that already a settlement exists. This is again a question of fact if in reality any previous settlement was made and if, so whether the same is till effective. Legal objections are those which can be decided without any evidence. As the preliminary objections are not purely legal they could have bee decided alongwith the decision of the main demand. Since there was on] one demand no lengthy evidence will be recorded. So, it cannot be said that it will take long time to decide the case on merits. The application of the petitioner was, therefore, rightly disallowed by the learned lower Court. On account of a frivolous application the progress of the case remained stopped for about four long years. This is noteworthy that alongwith the application made by the petitioner for the decision of legal objection no copy of the previous demand notice alleged to have been filed by the Conciliator and the copy of the earlier settlement alleged to be existed were filed for ready reference. If the application had been given with genuine intention the copies of the above‑mentioned documents would have been brought on the record alongwith the petition. It is thus manifest that the only purpose was to delay the case and that object has been achieved as due to heavy file the revision petition could not be decided within a reasonable time. It appears necessary to discourage such dilatory tactics by imposition of costs or otherwise. For the present I refrain from imposing costs and only disapprove the act of making frivolous petition. The revision is dismissed and the learned trial Court is asked to decide the industrial dispute expeditiously. The lower Court record be sent back immediately. A. E. Revision dismissed.