' The decision, dated 28-4-1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,2, Lahore has been challenged in this appeal, whereby the petition of the respondent union brought under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for granting earned leave encashment and contributory provident fund/gratuity under Office Order, dated 5-10-1977, was accepted.
2. The respondent based its claim on letter Exh.P.2. The learned lower Court has said' that Exh.P.2 not being a recommendation is an award and on its strength has allowed the petition. Vide this document the Administration/Finance Committee accorded approval of the adoption of P.L.D.B.
Service Regulations for the employees of Lahore Milk Plant. The appellant refused to accept Exh.P.2.
3. The learned lower Court has wrongly treated Exh.P.2 as an Award. Needless to say that application by a C.B.A. Under section 34 and by the workers under section 25-A can be based upon any right guaranteed by any settlement, award or law. Award has been defined in section 2(ii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The definition shows that firstly there should be existing an industrial dispute and secondly the determination of the dispute should be by a Labour Court, Arbitrator or Appellate Tribunal. An industrial dispute is raised as provided by sections 26 to 32(1) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The dispute can be taken to the Labour Court under section 32(1-A). There is nothing on the record that any industrial dispute was raised according to the provisions of sections 26 to 32(1). Likewise, it is nobody's case that any industrial dispute was taken to the Labour Court under section 32(1-A) and the said Court gave any award before the petition under section 34 was lodged. So, letter Exh.P.2 is not an award of any Labour Court. No right having been guaranteed by any award as defined in section 2(ii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the petition cannot be accepted.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has led arguments on the status of Exh.P.2 but since these points were not raised and argued before the learned lower Court nor the Court gave any finding, no commitment can be made at this stage. Exh.P.2 not being an Award, the Court could not direct the appellants to implement the same. The learned lower Court has to decide what is the status of Exh.P.2 and whether it has guaranteed any right when it was not accepted by the appellant. Prima facie the Court cannot in a petition under section 34 or section 25-A compel a party to act upon the terms not accepted by it. Where demands are not acceded to, an industrial dispute is to be raised and if it culminates in a settlement or an award, only then it has binding force: The learned lower Court has not considered this aspect of the case nor has recorded any finding on it. The said Court has also not discussed and decided the point raised by the appellants about the competency of the respondent union to move application under section 34. So the case is liable to be remanded.
5. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the case is remanded for fresh decision. The parties will be at liberty to produce any further evidence, if they so like.