DECISION This is an appeal against an award dated 30th April 1970, of the 1st West Pakistan Labour Court, Karachi. Tile impugned order was passed in the following circumstances:
2. On 13th March 1968, Mr. Usman Saleh Mohammad, General Secretary of .the India Flour. Mills Workers' Union, Karachi, raised certain demands against Messrs India Flour Mills Limited. The conciliation proceedings having failed, a Failure Certificate were issued on 19th April 1968, by the Concilia--tion Officer. The General Secretary of the Union made an application under section 6(8) of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968 (hereinafter called the repealed Ordinance) before the Court on 11th May 1968. The Manage--ment raised a preliminary objection that the Mill having closed the industrial dispute raised by the union had become in fructuous.
The contention found favour with the learned Court and it dismissed the application on 20th February 1969. On appeal, the t Appellate Tribunal on 19th May 1969 came to the conclusion that the Court should have adjudicated upon the industrial dispute, so far as the liability of the Management stood up to 27th June 1969. The admitted position is that there was no 1st Industrial Court for some time after the Appellate Tribunal gave its order on 19th May 1969. The Office put up a note on 19th August 1969, before the Industrial Court that the Industrial Appellate Tribunal had remanded Industrial Dispute No.,7 of 1968, on 19th May 1969 and suggested that 23rd September 1969, may be fixed for further proceedings. The Court accepted the suggestion of the Office. It seems that notices were issued to the parties. On 23rd September 1969, the Representative of the respondent made an application under section 11(2) of the repealed Ordinance that Industrial Dispute No. 7 of 1968, should be dismissed on the ground that the relationship between the parties of employer and the employees had ceased to exist as a result of an agreement arrived at on 15th July 1969, through the intervention of the Martial Law Authorities. The learned Chairman of the Court ordered on this application that Mr. Usman be produced on 27th October 1969. On 27th October 1969, Mr. Usman was examined and the Representatives of the parties were allowed, to put questions, to him.
3. The Court asked the parties to address it after the state--ment of Mr. Usman was recorded on the objections raised by the Representative of the respondent. After hearing the arguments of the Representatives of the parties on 27th October 1969, the Court reserved the award. The award was given on 30th April 1970.
4: The learned Chairman of the Industrial Court came to tire conclusion, in the first place, that the relationship of employer and the employee had ceased to exist between the parties after 21st May.
1969, and therefore, no industrial dispute could be said to exist after 21st May 1969. The learned Court, in the second placer came to the conclusion that the appellant having taken recourse to Martial Law Authorities for redress of their grievances they were now stopped from seeking the assistance of the Court.
5. The first question that - requires consideration is as to , how -far Industrial Dispute No. 7 of 1968, raised -by the India Flour Mills Workers' Union ,had been settled by the agreement arrived at on 15th July 1969, through the intervention of the Martial . Law Authorities. It may be mentioned at the very outset that the application, which the Union made before the Martial Law Authorities, has hot been produced by it. The agreement is on the record. It is dated 15th July 1969, and is signed, on' behalf of the Management, by Mr. Wahid F. Tawawalla, and on behalf of the Union; by Mr. Usman and Mr. Niazi. It is also signed by the Sub-Administrator Martial Law. The agreement is in five paragraphs.
Under paragraph No. 1, the services of the workers of the Mill stood terminated with effect from 21st May 1969. Under paragraph No. 2, they were entitled to a month's wages in lieu of notice. Under paragraph No. 3, the workers were to receive full wages in terms of the order of the Industrial Appellate Tribunal from 24th June 1968 to 23rd July 1968. Under paragraph No. 4, under the direction of the Martial Law Administrator, the 10anagement agreed to give 50;` of the wages for the period from 24th July 1968 to 21st May 1969. Under the last paragraph the total ascertained dues, including those already mentioned in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4, were payable in six monthly instalments beginning from 1st August 1969.
6. The Court had examined Mr. Usman as a Court witness. The relevant portion of his statement runs as under: "The Mill has now been closed down since June 1968. In July 1969, we had applied to the Martial Law Authorities for -implementation of the orders of the Appellate Tribunal. The Martial Law Authorities had sent for the respondents end also me. There on the 15th of July 1969, there was a settlement to which I was a party and I signed on behalf of the workmen in the presence of the Martial Law Officer"
7. In answer to a question put by Mr. Majeed the learned Representative for the Union, Mr. Usman replied as under: "The settlement before the Martial Law Authorities was with regard to the pay for the period of suspension and not with regard to the demands."
8. I have reproduced the relevant statement of Mr. Usman before the learned Court. It follows from the statement, firstly, that the Mill had closed in June 1968. In the second place, that they had approached the Martial Law Authorities for the implementation of the orders of the Appellate Tribunal. In the third place, the Union had agreed to the agreement arrived at between the parties.
9. It was very strenuously contended by Mr. Majeed, the learned Representative for the appellant, that the agreement arrived at between the parties was only in respect of one order of the Tribunal, i.e. that of 25th March 1969. 1 had held under this order that the workers before me would be entitled to their full wages for the period when the Mill was under suspension under the order of the Food Department. This contention is not correct. The agreement dated 15th July 1969, is not only in respect of the wages for the period from 24th June 1968 to 23rd July 1968, but also in respect of other matters, namely, that though admittedly, the Mill had ceased to work from 27th June 1968, the services of the workers stood terminated from 21st May 1969, and that they were also to receive one month's wages in lieu of notice. Not only this, the workers were also to receive 50% of their wages for the period from 24th July 1968 to 21st May 1969. It cannot, therefore, be said that the agreement arrived at between the parties on 15th July 1969, related only to the order of the '
Appellate Tribunal dated 25th March 1969. It may be mentioned here that the other order of the Tribunal dated 19th May 1969, related to Industrial Dispute No. 7 of 1968. The Tribunal had ordered the Court to dispose of the industrial dispute to the extent of the liability of the Management up to 27 June 1968, when the Mill was closed. It appears from a perusal of the statement of Mr. Usman and he agreement arrived at between the parties that the main dispute was also disposed of through the agreement dated 15th July 1969. The last paragraph of the agreement is very significant. The relevant portion of the same runs as under: "That the total ascertained dues, including those accruing under clauses 2, 3 and . 4 hereof, creditable to you shall be payable in six monthly instalments"
10. It appears that the parties had settled through an agreement all their ascertained dues., It is now too late to press that there are still outstanding industrial disputes between the Union and the Management.
11: At any rate, the admitted position being that the Mill had. ceased to function from 27th June 1968, the Court could not give effect to many of the demands raised by the Union. In all, the Union,' had raised 15 demands. Demand No. 1, is about the implementation of the award dated 23rd December 1966, between the Flour Mills Employees' Union, Karachi, and the Karachi Steam Roller Flour Mills; Karachi. Under that award, the Union claimed, (a) Dearness Allowance at Rs. 6:00, and (b)
Dearness Allowance and other allowances to be merged with basic pay. It may be mentioned that this award was not between the present Union and the Management. It was between different parties. The Management, however, agreed to abide by the award given by the Court between the Flour Mills Employees' Union and the Karachi Steam Roller Mills, Karachi, It was admitted today before me that an appeal is still pending in the High Court at Karachi against the award made by the Industrial Court.. So long as the award is the, subject-matter of an appeal, it' cannot be given effect to. At any rate, it has been rightly he:3 in the case of Employees' Union v. Ideal Life Assurance Company Limited, Karachi (1966 P L G 661) and The United Salt Workers' Union v. Messrs Abro Salt -& Chemical Works, Karachi (1967 PLC 488) that an award, if not implemented cannot be the subject-matter of an industrial dispute. The repealed Ordinance provided other remedy for implementation of the award. Demand No. 1 therefore, could not be raised as an industrial dispute.
Demands Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5; relate to rising of strength of workmen. The Mill having closed on 27th June 1968, `the question of rising the strength of the workmen does not arise. Demand No. 6, relates to giving of Uniform to the Office 'Staff. This also does not now lie. Demand No. 7, relates to providing a Canteen for the workers. Demands Nos. 8, 9 and 10 relate to Medical Facilities, Demand No. 1 to Cheap Provision Store, and Demand No. 12, relates to making 20 workmen, -who were working as temporary workmen for the last about 3. Years to be permanent.Demand No. 13, related to fresh appointment from retrenched -workmen. Demand No. 15, related to the strength of workmen to be brought back to 6 as usual. All these demand have become virtually in fructuous when the Mill was closed down on 27th June 1968. Demand No. 14, relates to the re-instatement of Osman, workman. The agreement arrived at between the Union and the Management does not clearly dispose of the demand of the Union about the re-instatement of Osman, j workman. It appears to me from the perusal of the agreement r dated 15th July 1969, that the Union was not very much -interested in the re-instatement of Osman son of Siddique. Had it been interested inth the re-instatement of Osman, it would have pressed the same. It is open to the Union to give up any demand. On a perusal of the agreement, it appears that the. Union had greatly benefited from the agreement. Though the Mill had closed on 27th June 1968, the Management had agreed to give certain benefits up to 21st May 1969, to the workers-who were before the Martial Law Authorities.
12. Mr. Majeed, the learned Representative for the appellant also contended that the agreement dated 15th July 1969, not being a settlement within the meaning of the repealed Ordinance. it is not binding on the Union. There is -not much force in this content on. Mr. Osman, who appeared before the Court, admitted to have arrived. at an agreement on 15th July 1969. He did not state before the Court that it was not beneficial to the workmen. The agreement had been acted upon to some extent; it is now too late to go back on the agreement.
13. For the reasons given above, I would hold that Indus--trial Dispute No. 7 of 1968, stood settled through the agreement slated 15th July- 1969. I see no reason to take a different view from what has been taken by the learned Labour Court. The appeal is dismissed.