DECISION This appeal is directed against an order of the Sind Labour Court No.III at Karachi, dated 30-7-1985, who dismissed the petition under section 32(1-A) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance,1969, filed by the appellant union.
2. The facts may be enumerated that the appellant union i.e. Searle Pakistan Ltd. Employees Union raised an industrial dispute and filed under section 32(1-A), I.R.O., 1969, an application for adjudicating the demands of the workers. Earlier the said union had filed under section 34 of I.R.O., 1969, an application before the Labour Court which was dismissed as not maintainable and it was advised by the learned Labour Court who decided the matter under section 34, that the union is free to file an application under section 32(1-A) of the I.R.O., 1969. Hence, the union did file the present application. It may be noted that there existed a settlement in between the parties and that settlement was effective from 1-1-1984 and was binding on the parties for two years ending on 31-12-1985. Under clause 18(a) of the said settlement, the union had agreed not to raise any fresh demand whatsoever or any further demand having direct or indirect financial implications on the part of the management during the period covered by this settlement. It was further agreed upon between the parties under clause 18(b) of the said settlement that this settlement was in full and final settlement and all claims and demands of the union including the demand raised by the union as per Charter of Demands, dated 1-1-1984 and that all the said demands must be considered to be withdrawn, settled and modified in accordance with and in consideration of this agreement. Now, various demands are raised which are embodied in the Demand Notice and which relate to the various complaints with regard to duty hours and breaks and the arrangements with regard to curfew hours for the transportation of the workers and overtime conditions etc.
3. The respondents, namely, the management resisted this so-called industrial dispute relying on the settlement already in operation and the package deal in between the two parties and questions that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain an application under section 32(1- A), I.R.0.1969.
4.I have heard both the learned counsels for the parties.
5. The main argument in this appeal is that already a settlement between the parties was in operation and during the operative period, no further demands could be raised by the union. It was argued by Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani that since the settlement for two years was in operation, no fresh demands be raised and agitated. He referred to the case of Province of West Pakistan v: Syed Muharram Ali and 39 others, reported in 1970 PLC 488, that whereas the union had raised an industrial dispute without legally terminating the earlier memorandum of a settlement, the Supreme Court of Pakistan had held that subsequently raising of an industrial dispute was illegal as the earlier settlement was still in operation. He also referred to the case of Adamjee Jute Mills v.
Province of Pakistan and 3 others, reported in 1960 PLC 166 in which it has been held by the Division Bench as under: - "I would like to observe that the industrial peace demands that sanctity should be attached to award and the settlement and if the Government or the parties are allowed to think that settlement based on the award has no sanctity then there would be little chance of ending the industrial dispute."
"It is contended on their behalf that applicants are not entitled to by-pass this agreement and to raise a new demand during the continuation of the said settlement. The contention of the management is not without force. In law parties are bound by the terms of agreement accepted by them and they are not entitled to claim any concession which has not been ('ranted to them."
It was decided by the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal reported in 1975 PLC 205, that the applicant union was not competent to raise an industrial dispute during the period of operation of settlement arrived at between the parties. The settlement arrived at between the parties must be given due weight.
6. In the present case, it was agreed between the parties that union shall not raise any fresh demand or any further demand having direct or indirect financial implications on the part of the management during the period covered by the settlement. In nutshell, it can be said that it was a package deal entered into between the management and the C.B.A. Wherein on the one hand the management had agreed to give substantial, financial benefits to the workers and C.B.A. Had agreed not to raise any fresh demands whatsoever and further any demand having direct or indirect financial implications on the part of the management.
7. Mr. Farooq, the General Secretary of the C.B.A. Union had agitated before the Labour Court No. 111, Karachi, in a petition under section 34 of the I.R.O. 1969, agitating the same demands and where he did not succeed, he filed the present petition under section 32(1-A), of the I.R.O. 1969. The main hurdle against him was the settlement between the parties which was subsisting in the form of a settlement. I would agree with the impugned order of the Labour Court and dismiss would agree with the impugned the present appeal.