1. MAZHARUL HAQ (CHAIRMAN).--This is a reference under section 32 sub-clause 12) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, for the adjudication of the 13 demands raised by the Firdaus Shoes Workers' Union, Muridke against the Management, Firdaus Shoes Muridke. Documents relied upon by the parties in this case, have been admitted by each other. A preliminary objection has arisen which would require determination before going into merits of the demands. The learned representative of the respondent Management has argued that the first demand notice was given by the Union on 7-2-1970 which included only 11 demands. Since at this date, the Union was not a bargaining agent, not having been registered, the demand notice was not valid and that any subsequent notice after the registration of the Union would not validate the first demand notice. It may be mentioned at this stage that the petitioner Union has not appeared for arguments and the case has been proceeded ex parte. However, I find that since on 22-2-1970, the notice was given by the Union for extending the period of 7 days for dialogue and before 22-2-1970, the Union had been registered, i.e. On 12-2-1970, It would therefore, be immaterial if on 7-2-1970, the petitioner Union was not a bargaining agent.
2. The second objection raised by the respondent is that in the strike notice, 13 demands have been raised. The learned representative of the respondent has, however, argued that after receiving the second notice on 22-2.1970, the Union was asked to appear in the Labour Office for negotiations which the petitioner Union avoided and thereafter served a strike notice before the expiry of the period of 7 days allowed for the dialogue. Consequently, it being a clear violation of mandatory provisions of section 26, sub-clause (2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, therefore, section 43 would bar the adjudication of the dispute.
3. I have considered this aspect of the case. In my view, since section 43 clearly lays down that no Industrial Dispute shall be deemed to exist unless it has been raised in the prescribed manner by a collective bargaining agent. Since in the instant case, there has been a clear violation of the manadatory provisions or section 26, sub-clause 2 inasmuch as that the petitioner Union had avoided the conciliation proceedings before the conciliator, therefore, no adjudication of the demands can be made in the absence of having raised the Industrial Dispute in the prescribed, manner.