This is an appeal against an award of the learned First Sind Labour Court. Karachi, dated November 3, 1971. The facts giving rise to the present appeal briefly put are these.
2. An Industrial Dispute arose between the workers of Messrs A. Rehman Textile Industries, Karachi and Messrs A. Rehman Textile Industries, Karachi. The conciliation proceed--ings resulted in a Failure Certificate dated the 20th of March 1969. The Five Elected Representatives of the workmen made an application to the Labour Court under section 6(8) of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968, on the 16th of April 1969.
3. The Five Elected Representatives had raised as many as nine demands. A reply to the Statement of Claims was filed by the Textile Industries on the 12th of May 1969. On behalf of the Five Elected Representatives, Mr. Hakimuddin, one of the Elected Representatives gave his statement in support of the demands before the learned Court. No other witness appeared on behalf of the workmen. On behalf of the A. Rehman Textile Industries, Mr. Iqbal Ahmed, one of the partners, appeared before the Court in support of the denial of the demands made by the workmen. His statement was recorded on the 21st of November 1969. No other witness was examined on behalf of the Textile Industries.
4. Mr. Masood Mirza, the learned Representative for the Textile Industries has taken a Preliminary Objection as to the maintainability of the appeal. His contention in short is that the appeal having not been filed by the Five Elected Representa--tives of the workmen is not competent. The appeal has been filed by the A. Rehman Textile Industries Workers' Union through fits General Secretary. On the other hard the contention of the learned Advocate for the appellant is that the Workers' Union having been registered after the filing of the dispute before the Court the Union is competent to file the appeal. I have considered the contention of Mr. Masood Mirza, the learned Representative of the Textile Industries, carefully and have come to the conclusion that, considering the various provisions of the industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968 and West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Rules, 1960, the objection is a technical one. At any rate Civil Procedure Code having been made applicable to the proceeding before the Labour Court this Court has jurisdiction to permit the Union to file the appeal.
5. Under rule 27 of the Industrial Disputes Rules, 1960, a Notice of Strike could be given by the Secretary of the Registered Trade Union of which the workmen giving the Notice of Strike are Members or by Five Elected Representa--tives of the Workmen duly authorised in this behalf at a meeting held for the said purpose. In the present case, no doubt, the Notice of Strike was given by the Five Elected Representatives of the Workers. The admitted position is that there was no Registered Trade Union at that the. The Union was registered on the 10th of May 1969, as would appear from the Certificate of Registration of Trade Union which has been filed in this Court. Under section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968, the Award would be binding where a party is composed of workmen, on all persons who were employed in the Establishment or part of the Establishment, as the case may be, to which the dispute relates and all persons who subsequently become employed in that Establishment or part thereof. Tinder section 37(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, an appeal can be filed by "Any party aggrieved by an Award given under subsection (1), may prefer ab appeal to the Labour Appellate Tribunal within thirty days of the delivery thereof and the decision of the Tribunal in such appeal shall be final". I would give liberal interpretation to the phrase "any party aggrieved by an Award", considering the provision of section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968, that the Award would be binding on all the workmen the Trade Union is very much an "aggrieved party", The appeal, therefore, would be competent.
6. Mr. Masood Mirza, the learned Representative for the A. Rehman Textile Industries, relied on the case of Jalal Din v. Orient Match Co. Ltd. And 2 others (1968 PLC 137), in support of his contention that the appeal by the Union was incompetent. In that case the Labour Trade Union of Orient Match Factory had raised the dispute disputing the dismissal of one Jalal Din. The Award eves given against the Union. The appeal was filed by Jalal Din and not by the Labour Union. The High Court on appeal came to the conclusion that the appeal was incompetent as it had not been filed by the Union. The observations of their Lordships in that case in fact would support the contention of Mr. All Amjad. In that case it was observed that the Ordinance contemplates only to parties, namely, the Management and the Workmen. If the Management dismisses a workman or terminate his services it can at bars furnish him with a cause of action if he is able to establish that his dismissal was not in accordance with the terms of his employment. The action taken against the workman does not ordinarily effect the Industrial Peace. "In case, however, the Union which. Represents the workman takes up the dismissal of an individual workman and proceeds against such an action on the part of the Management it may become subject-matter of an industrial dispute. The cause in that case will not be of the individual workman concerned who will Become that of the body of the workmen.". It can be safely concluded from the observations of their Lordships of the High Court that the Union is a competent body to represent the grievances of the workmen. In that view of the matter though there is a change of nomenclature namely from Five Elected Representatives to Rehman Textile Industrial Workers' Union, it cannot tie said that the Union is no an aggrieved party against the award given by the learned Court. I would hold that -the appeal by the Union 14 competent.
7. At any rate if the contention of Mr. Masood Mirza was to prevail the Court, considering the fact that the award would be binding on all the workmen of the Textile Industries, would be competent to permit the Union under C. P. C. To file the appeal.
8. On merit Mr. Ali Amjad contended that the mere fact that the partnership between Mr. Iqbal and Mr. Mohammad Yahya had been dissolved on the 1st of September 1970, does not lead to the conclusion that the factory has been closed. Mr. Masood Mirza, the learned Representative for the Management contended that he had made an application to the Court on 9th October 1970 that the factory, had been closed and that the partnership had been dissolved on 1st of September 1970.
Whatever the effect may be of the dissolution of the partnership on the claim raised by the Five Elected Representatives of the workmen one thing is very clear that up to the 21st of November 1969, the factory was running. Mr. Iqbal who appeared before the Court as a witness for the Textile Industries on the 21st of November 1969 did not state that the factory had been closed in the sense that it has been wound up. All that Mr. Iqbal stated was that they declared a lay of on and from the 12th March 1969. . A declaration of lay of contemplates the continuance of service. Moreover it requires consideration, on the evidence on the record, as to whether on their dissolution of partnership in fact they bad stopped running its business.
9. In the second place Mr. Ali Amjad contended that the finding of the learned Court that Standing Order did not apply is contrary to the evidence on record. In this connection he relied on an order of the Martial Law- Authority fated the 23rd 4 October 1970, that the Standing Order was applicable to the factory. As I have come to the conclusion that the matter must be remanded to the learned Court for decision an meat I would leave this question also open to the Court to dispose it of in accordance with law.
10. For the reasons given above I would set aside the Award dated the 3rd Of November 1971, and remand, the case for disposal on merit.