This is an appeal against an award of the learned Chairman of the Second Sind Labour Court, Karachi, dated the 27th of July 1971. The facts giving rise to the appeal briefly put are these.
2. The Workers of Taj Restaurant (hereinafter called the respondent) commenced strike from the 23rd of July 1970. It lasted for more than thirty days. Thereafter the Government of Sind, Labour & Social Welfare Department prohibited the strike and referred the dispute under section 32 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 to tie Labour Court. During the pendency of the reference before the Labour Court the Union and the appellant amicably settled their matters by an agreement dated the 5th of July 1971. The agreement is signed by one of the Partners of the appellant and on behalf of the workers by the President, General Secretary, Vice-President and the Joint Secretary of the Union. The joint application was made by Mr. Mohammad Sharif and Mr. S. A.
Riaz Bukhari, General Secretary of the workers on 7th of January 1971 to the Court. It was prayed in the application as under:- "It is prayed that the above matter may be dismissed as withdrawn."
The Court, however, made an Award on the 27th of July 1971.
3. It is contended by Mr. Izzat Puri, the learned Represen--tative for the Appellant, in the first place, that the Court should have dismissed the reference as withdrawn. On the other hand, Mr. Riaz Bukhari, the General Secretary of the workers who represents them, submitted that the Court on a reference by the Government under Section 32 of the Ordinance had to give an award and it could not dismiss the reference as withdrawn. Moreover, in the Agreement dated 5th of July 1971 it is stated, that:- "The parties have agreed to move a joint application before the Labour Court No. 2 for the disposal of the Labour Dispute pending adjudication, I. D. No. 4 of 1971 under section 32 of I. R. O., 1969."
On the joint application of the parties to the settlement the Court has rightly given on award in terms of the Agreement. In the second place Mr. Puri contended that the Award given by the Court does not fully express the terms of the Agreement arrived at between the parties. In this connection a reference was made to Demand No. 3. Under Demand No. 3 the Court granted the following relief :- "The Management has agreed to allow 10 days Annual Leave with pay on completion of one year's service and 10 days Casual Leave with-pay. As regards festival holidays, the matter has been left to the Management."
On the other band the settlement arrived at between the parties on Demand No. 3 is as under :- "The Management has agreed to allow various kinds of leave with pay to the workers as under.
(a) 10 days annual leave on completion of one year service ;
(b) 10 days Casual Leave in a Calendar Year. The worker should request for leave one day prior. The management should decide festival leave in view of their convenience. This leave shall be affected from 1-7-1971."
4. It is clear on comparison of what the Court has granted under Demand No. 3 and what the parties agreed that there is some difference between the to, though it is not very substantial. The Court was to five an Award in terms of the Settlement arrived at between the parties and not to alter it in any way. The Settlement dated 5th of July 1971, as I have already men--tioned, is signed by the important functionaries of the Union, that is, the President. Vice-President, General Secretary and Joint Secretary and one of the Partner Representative on behalf of the Restaurant.
5. I would set aside the award given by the learned Court and give an award in terms of the Agreement arrived at between the parties on 5th of July 1971. The Agreement shall form part of the Award.