These are 2 appeals against a common order of the learned IVth Labour Court , given on 21st December, 1982, dismissing. 2 separate applications purporting to have been made under section 34, I.R.O. One for the enforcement of rights of workers under clause (2) of the settlement arrived at between the respondent hotel and the C. B. A. Therein on 6th August, 1978 and the other for the enforcement of the rights of the workers granted under clause
(3) of the said settlement. The learned Labour Court has dismissed the 2 applications under section 34,
1. R. O., on the grounds, firstly, that the appellant, Muhammad Salahuddin Siddiqi, is not an officer of the C. B. A. In the respondent hotel and hence is not entitled to file an application under section 34, I. R. O., and the second that the settlement of 1978, for the enforcement of rights whereunder the applications under section 34,
1. R. O., have been made by the appellant, has since long expired and the provisions of the said settlement cannot be now. Enforced.
2. Now, as regards the first ground which weighed with the learned Labour Court in dismissing the ; applications under section 34, I.R.O., it has relied upon the evidence of Mir Muhammad Baloch, Assistant Direc--tor, Labour (Trade Unions), East Division, Karachi. The said witness had brought the registration file in respect of Hostellarie-de-Staff and Workers Union, Karachi, and on the basis of the record testified that the said union by it letter, dated 12th May, 1981, bad notified the Registrar, Trade Unions, that an election took place in the said union on 22nd April, 1981, and was approved by the general body of the union on 6th May, 1981, by which new officers of the said union were elected. The witness further stated that the change of office-bearers in the said union, as notified in its letter, dated 12th May, 1981, was approved by the Registrar, Trade Unions, on 11th, August, 1981. The witness also testified that before the change of the officers in the said union . Was registered by the appellant, Muhammad Salahuddin, was shown as General Secretary of the Union but after the change, he was not shown as holding any office in the said Union. In cross-exami--nation, the witness stated that the Joint Director, Labour, on written request of the newly-elected General Secretary had permitted the union to hold a general body meeting on 6th May, 1981. In view of this evidence of the Assistant Director, Labour, which has not been contradicted, nor does it appear that the appellant Muhammad Salabuddin, has taken any proceeding under subsection (7) of section 8, I. R. O., :to challenge the registration of the new office-bearers in the said Union, the appellant has no locus standi to file and maintain the 2 applications under section 34, I.. R. O.; after he had ceased to be the General Secretary of the said A Union and the change of office-bearers had been approved by the Registrar, Trade Unions.
3. The second ground which weighed with the learned Labour Court in dismissing the 2 applications under section 34, I. R. O., is also sound. The settlement, for the enforcement of the benefits granted whereunder the 2 applications under section 34, I. R. O., have been filed, was admittedly arrived at between the parties on 6th August, 1978. The settlement was effective from 1st July, 1978, and it indicates that it was to be binding upon the parties for a period of 2 years with effect from 1st July, 1978. The agreement thus expired on 30th June, 1980. Subsection
(2) of section 40, I. R. O., expressly lays down that a settlement shall be binding for such period as is agreed upon by the parties. Since the parties had agreed in the settlement itself that it would be binding for a period of 2 years, the benefits or rights conferred by the said agreement cannot be enforced for the period after the expiry of the settlement itself.
4. It was, however, sought to be argued by Mr. Ali ' Ahmed, the learned counsel for the appellant, that the appellant has been acting as the General Secretary of the C. B. A. All along, that no elections had in fact taken place or any change of officers notified and that further the settlement of 1978, is still in force. I regret that I find no force in his contentions. Since the change of officer- bearers has been registered by the Registrar, Trade Unions, and the appellant, Muhammad Salahuddin, is no longer shown as an office-bearer of the union which is C. B. A. In the respondent hotel, he is not entitled to file and maintain applications under section 34, T. R. O., on behalf of the workers. Similarly, since the settlement of 1978, bas expired by efflux of time, the settlement bonus thereunder cannot be claimed for the period after the expiry of the settlement. However, as regards statutory bonus under Standing Order 10-C, the workers in the respondent hotel, if they have not been paid the same, can claim the same, irrespective of the expiry of the settlement of 1978.
5. I would accordingly dismiss the 2 appeals in limine.