1976 PLP 927 (PLC)

Application No. 434 of 1976, decided on 3rd August 1976. Settlement - Period of - Contents of settlement indicating it to remain binding for fixed period 2 years) and further to continue until expiry of two months written notice by either party-Notice of termina tion, held, could be given only after expiry of fixed period of 2 years and not earlier-Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1963), S. 4C(2). Raja Shams-uz-Zaman for Applicant. S. M. Yaqoob for Respondent. The respondent has raised a preliminary legal objection in this case in regard to the maintainability of this application. I have accordingly heard Mr. S. M. Yaqoob for the respondent and Mr. Raja Shamsuz-Zaman for the applicant. Mr. Yaqoob has submitted that the applicant-Union had executed an agreement on 15-5-1.974 and according to it this agreement was to remain binding on the parties for a period of two years and further that this agreement would continue to remain binding until the expiry of written two months notice given by either parties. Mr. Yaqoob contended that two years time was to expire on 14-5-1976 and if the Union waited to terminate this settlement it could give notice of termination only after 14-5-1976, whereas the applicant-Union served such notice on 15-3-1976, that is, much before the expiry of two years. Mr. Shams-uz-Zaman, learned counsel for the applicant, has submitted that the last clause of the settlement ire question has two separate and independent parts and both cannot be read together because the word "thereafter" used in this clause is disjunctive and not conjunctive. According to him this settlement was automatically to expire after the expiry of two years, that is, on 14-5-76 and no notice was required to be given by any party for its termination. The notice given by the applicant in this case on 15-3-76 is just an intention to terminate the settlement. According to him, the later part of this clause is superfluous and may be redundant. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced before me and I am of the view that the plea of Mr. Yaqoob is to prevail. Section 40 (2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 stipulates the duration of the settlement and according to it, a settlement shall be binding for such period as is agreed upon by the parties and if no period is agreed upon, A for a period of one year from the date of the signing of the settlement and shall continue until the expiry of two months from the date on which either party informs the other party in writing of its intention no longer to be bound by the settlement. The settlement in question no doubt fixed a time of two years of its operation but it also provided the same condition as is stipulated for the settlements which fixed no date of operation. The last clause of this settlement specifically lays down that this settlement shall be for two years and shall continue until a written termination notice is served by one party or the other. Accordingly, in my humble view, the union's termination notice dated 15-3-1976 was premature as such termination notice could have been given only after 14-5-1976. For the foregoing reasons I conclude that the service of charter of demands on the respondent and tiling application under section 32(1-A) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is premature and so the present application under section 32 (1-A) of I.R.O. 1969 is not maintainable which is accordingly dismissed.