1992 PLP 185 (PLC)

H.R. Haider for Respondent. The petitioner seeks an order that the respondents may be restrained from committing any unfair labour practice. The petitioner establishment is a subsidiary of Pakistan Mineral Development Corporation which is a Public Sector Corporation under the control of Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources, Government of Pakistan, respondent No. 1 is the CBA of the petitioner establishment; respondent No. 2 is the senior Vice-President of the CBA; and that the petitioner is engaged in the excavation and sale of coal; and that the respondent No. 1 raised an industrial dispute on 29-11-1989 by serving the management with a charter of demands, the dispute was settled vide agreement dated 31-10-1989 for a period of two and a half years; the agreement is still in force; and that the agreement dated 31-10-1989, provided a general clause No. 3 which reads as follows:-- "During the operation period of this agreement the CBA Union undertakes not to raise any demand involving any financial implications, either directly or indirectly and not to go on any strike or resort to any disruption of work or indulge in any disruptive/illegal activities or adopt such tactics whatsoever." And that the respondent No. 1 in violation of settlement dated 31-10-1989, served the petitioner Management with a notice dated 13-2-1991 for the payment of certain allowances mentioned therein within 8 days otherwise the workers may go on strike, subsequently, vide intimation of Union's decision dated 16-2-1991, the respondent Union intimated that the workers would proceed on strike w.e.f. 20-2-1991; and that the petitioner replied to the notice vide letter No. Admn-66(c)/2877, dated 19-2-1991, and explained the position that firstly no financial demands could be raised during the currency of the existing settlement. Secondly, that the Management with the Union's agreement referred the matter to the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources for consideration and advice and which is under the Ministry's active consideration. Finally, that the petitioner establishment is running in loss and the cumulative loss has reached up to Rs.131,367 millions up to 30-6-1991. Accordingly, the CBA Union was advised to refrain from inducing workers from strike; and that in reply to Union's notice dated 16-2-1991 Management vide its letter dated 22-2-1991 informed that Union's decision to go on strike is illegal; and that in spite of the fact that the matter is under consideration with the Federal Government, the respondents are pressurising the petitioner for accepting their demands; that at the instigation of the respondents, the workers of the petitioner Collieries went on strike w.e.f. 20-2-1991, which is still continuing. The respondents have also incited the workers to commit acts subversive of discipline and to create a law and order situation; and that the business of the petitioner establishment and smooth running of the business has been adversely affected by the illegal activities of the respondents. The production and sales have been totally disrupted; and that the respondents are threatening resources to violent means against the Management for the acceptance of their demands, processions within. the precincts of the establishment are being taken out daily and provocative slogans are being raised against the Management. They have also threatened to sever the water and electricity supply and to stop the pumping of underground water from the mines; and that the production loss being suffered by the petitioner ?company is to the tune of Rs.4.5 lakhs daily as a result of the illegal strike and that the conduct of the stoppage of work, the maintenance and repairs in the mines cannot be carried out which endangers the safety and working of the mines, and irreparable loss may result therefrom; and that the respondents have committed the abovementioned acts which clearly constitute unfair labour practice and from the acts and utterances of workers and respondents, it is clear that they are likely to commit further acts of unfair labour practice against the Management. On the other hand the respondents have taken the stand that there had been neither illegal strike nor stoppage of work on 25-2-1991. It has been stated in para. No. 2 of written statement that the petitioners are not paying increases announced by the Government to the workers but these increases have been allowed to the Supervisory Staff vide letter dated 29-1-1991 and 6-1-1991, and the Notification issued by the Government dated 31-12-1990, and orders of the Minister dated 8-1-1991, and decision of the learned ADC? (G)/Magistrate Section 30, Khushab and notice issued by the Mines Labour Welfare Officer dated 23-1-1991, and by the Joint Director Labour, Sargodha Region dated 24-2-1991, and payment made in other establishments like Maple Leaf Cement Factory Ltd. dated 20-2-1991. It has been admitted that the workers had themselves stopped working under protest when this payment was not made but on the -commencement of the proceedings before the Labour Department made by the petitioners the workers assumed duties and there was no stoppage of work after 24-2-1991. From the respondent's side it has also been submitted that the Factory/Mine is running smoothly and that no unfair labour practice has been committed nor it will be committed and that the request to implement the Government announcement has been termed as strike notice. Arguments have been heard from both sides. The question to be resolved by this Commission is as to whether giving of the notice dated 13-2-1991 to implement an announcement of the Government in favour of the respondents amounts to a notice of strike? and whether the said notices and consequent stoppage of work .amount to any violation of the settlement dated 31-10-1989 and constitute an unfair labour practice? The answer is in the negative for the reasons that both the parties to the settlement are helpless before "any act of God" or any act which is beyond the reach or impossible for them to do. Both are bound by any announcement of the Federal or Provincial Government and their settlement is subject to any such announcement. The petitioner has, therefore, no case of unfair labour practice against the respondents as the respondents did nothing but brought to the notice of the petitioner the announcement made by the Chief Minister of the Punjab and the Prime ` Minister of Pakistan, and also requested to kindly implement the various concessions announced by the Chief Minister of Punjab and the Prime Minister of Pakistan otherwise the responsibility for any refusal of work by the labour will not be on the Union but on the Management. The action of the CBA is most trade union-like activity and is a "fair labour practice" which cannot be termed as "an unfair labour practice". The reply given by the petitioner to the notice dated 13-2-1991, has resulted in the stoppage of work and the Management is itself liable from this happening between 20-2-1991 to 24-2-1991. For the above reason the petition as well as stayy application are dismissed with costs of Rs.5,

000. H.B.T./173/N.I.R.C.??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.