1972 PLP 89 (PLC)

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 2(xiii), 36(2) & 43 read with Civil Procedure Cole (V of 1908), O. X XXIX, rr. 1 & 2‑Temporary injunction‑‑Labour Court to follow provi sions of O. XXXIX, rr. 1 & 2, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 only while adjudicating industrial dispute in terms of S. 36(2), Industrial 'Relations Ordinance, 1969‑Employee having filed application: under S. 34, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, against termination off' his service seeking grant of temporary injunction‑‑Held: though there was an industrial dispute as defined under S. 2 (xiii) but an industrial dispute, in circumstances, could not be deemed to exist in terms of S. 43, Industrial Relations Ordinance, hence provisions of O. XXXIX, rr. 1 & 2, regarding temporary injunctions not applicable. Abdul Majeed for Applicant. Applicant S. M Farid, Electroplator was a workman‑ with the respondents Muhammad Ebrahim & Co. It is alleged that he submitted his resignation on 29th of March 1971. He has filed an application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 in which he has prayed that his services may not be terminated by the respondents. Trough this application he wants a temporary injunction pending disposal of the main application against the respondents requiring them to allow him to continue in service. 2 The respondents have answered that the applicant had submitted his resignation on the 29th of March 1971, which was followed by a settlement of his account and that his resignation has been accepted. They add that certain incidents took place subsequently in which the applicant was involved in consideration of which they will not be in a position to take the applicant back. 3 Mr. Abdul Majeed appears with the applicant and Mr. Mahmood Abdul Ghani for the respondents. Contentions of Mr. Abdul Majeed are as follows ‑‑ (a) the resignation is forged. (b) the applicant was removed as a persuasive measures and this document was manipulated to cover up.

4. Mr. Mahmood Abdul Ghani contends that Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. will not be applicable to this case because this Court is required to follow the procedure laid down in C. P. C. only while adjudicating an industrial dispute in terms of section 36 (2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. To point out what in Industrial dispute means he refers to section 43 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. It reads as follows: ‑ "No industrial dispute shall be deemed to exist unless it has been raised in the prescribed manner by a collective bargaining agent or employer."

5. Mr. Abdul Majeed rises to say that industrial dispute has been defined in section 2 (xiii) which reads as follows: ‑ "Industrial Dispute" means any dispute or difference between employers and employers or between employers and workmen or between workmen and workman, which is connected with the employment or non‑employment or the terms of employment or the conditions of work of any person."

6. It is admitted that this dispute is between a workman ands the employers and has not been raised by a collective bargaining agent and on the face of it. I find weight in the contention a, Mr. Mahmood Abdul Ghani that in those circumstances although there is an industrial dispute it cannot be deemed to exist, This is a fiction but it has been created by a statute and can not be ignored.

7. As to the resignation, Mr. Mahmood Abdul Ghani has shown me voucher of settlement of accounts, which according to him bears the signature of the applicant. In the circumstances all the principles, which govern the issue of temporary injunction, in my opinion, are against the applicant. Prima facie case has not been made out nor does balance of convenience appear to exist in favour of the applicant. I, therefore, refuse to grant the temporary injunction in favour of the applicant. Announced in open Court.