1. AWARD M. JAMIL ASGHAR (CHAIRMAN).--This is an Industrial Dispute fit' raised by the Five Representatives of the Workers of Batala. Engineering Company (Pakistan) Limited, Lahore (petitioners), against the Managing Director, Batala Engineering Company (Pakistan) Limited, Lahore (respondent). The petitioners served a strike notice on 4-11-1968, upon which conciliation proceedings were started.
2. The Conciliation Officer held meetings between the parties on several dates but no amicable settlement could be arrived at between the parties.. He accordingly issued the Failure Certificate on 3-3-1969, and after that the Five Representative (petitioners) filed the present petition in this Court on 1-4-1969, under section 6 (8) of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968. for adjudication and determination of. the demands mentioned therein- The petition was resister; by we respondent, who also raised a preliminary objection that in view of the provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, which repealed the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968, the present petition could not proceed as the right of Five Representatives of Workmen had been taken away by the new law expressly and by necessary intendment. Moreover with the repeal of 1968 Ordinance all the pending actions had to stop at the stage where they stood at the time of repeal, unless they were saved by the clause contained in section 67 (2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. In order to appreciate this objection it would be feasible to reproduce the aforementioned section, which reads as the follows:- "Notwithstanding the repeal of any law by subsection (1), and without prejudice to the provisions of section 24 of the General Clauses Act 1897 (X of 1897)
3. (a)
(b) anything done, rules made, notification or order issued, officer appointed, Court constituted, notice given, proceedings commenced or other actions Taken under any law shall be deemed to have been done, made, issued, appointed, con. situated, given, commenced or taken, as the case may, under the corresponding provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of consistency therewith."
4. I was contended by the learned Representative of the respondent that where a repealing act contains its own saving clause, the general saving clause, i.e. section 6 of the General Clauses Act, will not apply. This proposition of law is well established and as such do not require any comments.
5. In view of the above, section 6 of the General Clauses Act will not apply in the present case as there is a saving clause mentioned in section 67 (2) (6) of 1969 Ordinance: Now the short point which requires determination is as to whether the aforementioned section acts as a bar to the continuance of the present proceedings. Under the Ordinance of 1968, after a strike notice had been served on the other party, conciliation proceedings, started and If no amicable settlement was arrived at between the parties, the Conciliation Officer gave a Failure Certificate and it was only then that the party was competent to bring the dispute to the Industrial Court as is laid down under section 6 (8) of the said Ordinance, Under the Ordinance 1969, of however, the procedure to bring the dispute to the Industrial Court has been charged. If at any time an employer or collective bargaining agent finds that an Industrial Dispute is likely to arise between the employer and any of the workmen, the employer or as the case may be, the collective bargaining agent shall communicate his or its view in writing to the other party. Thereafter within seven days of the receipt of the above communication a meeting is arranged between the representatives of both the parties and if no settlement is arrived at, the employer or the collective bargaining agent may serve on the other party to the dispute 21 days notice of lock-out of strike as the case may be: After the receipt of the afore--mentioned notice the Conciliator steps into the proceedings and tries to conciliate in the dispute by getting both the representatives of the parties together. If conciliation fails, the Conciliator shall try to persuade the parties to refer the dispute to an arbitrator. In case the parties agree, they shall make a joint request in writing for reference of the dispute to an arbitrator agreed upon by them The award of the Arbitrator shall be final and no appeal shall lie against it. If no settlement is arrived at during the course of conciliation proceedings and the parties to the dispute do not agree to refer it to an arbitrator, the workmen may go on strike or, as the case may be, the employer may declare as lock-out in accordance with the notice of strike or lock-out. If a strike or lock-out lasts for more than thirty days, the Provincial Government may, by order in writing, prohibit the strike or lock-out and shall forthwith refer the dispute to the Labour Court. In the present case the Court had already taken cognisance of the Industrial Dispute and was in the process of adjudicating and determining it when the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was promulgated on 13-11-1969. In the present ordinance the definition of Industrial Dispute remains the same and there is also the corresponding provision to adjudicate and determine the dispute.
6. Hence there is no inconsistency so far as the definition of Industrial Dispute is concerned. If the framer of 1969 Ordinance did not want. Five Representatives of the Workers to bring the dispute to Court they could have easily said so. It may be mentioned that before the t Ordinance, 1969 came into force the Five Representatives i.e. the petitioners, had a vested right to bring the dispute to this Court and that right cannot be taken away unless it is expressly mentioned in the 1969-Ordinance.
7. In the case, Muhammad Akhtar Hussain and 4 others v. Government of West Pakistan through the Chief Secretary to Government of West Pakistan, Lahore and 454 others (PLD 1970 SC 146) it was observed:- ---It is well settled that legislation may be made both prospective and retrospective but normally legislation, which is not of a purely procedural nature, will not be given retrospective effect so as to take away vested rights unless the Legislature Ash has used express words in that behalf or such an intention necessarily flows from the language of the statute.--- In view of the above we overrule the preliminary objection raised by the respondent and proceed to adjudicate and determine the dispute on merits.