DECISION This is an appeal against an award of the learned Presiding Officer of Sind Labour Court No. 1, Karachi, dated June 16, 1973, whereby the learned Labour Court dismissed the application of the Trade Union, filed under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called the Ordinance). The facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal briefly put are these.
2. The Workers' Union made an application on 23-9-1972, against the respondent-Management for re-instatement of Messrs Fakhruddin, Abdul Munir and Sher Khan Mast, whose services had been terminated by the respondents on 21st August 1972. The case of the Union was that the services of these three persons had been terminated mala fide, because of their Union activities and that the letter terminating their services did not specify t* reasons as to why their services were terminated: The Management, on the other hand, filed its reply on 16th October 1972. It is specifically contended that the dispute relating to the termination of services of these three workmen had been settled between the Union and the Management by a settlement dated 4th October 1972. The Management in the next place denied all the allegations made by the Union. The learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that the dispute regarding the termination of services of the three workmen had been settled between the Union and the Management under the settlement dated 4th October 1972. The learned Labour Court also held that want of reasons in the letter terminating the services of the workmen, did not prejudice the to workmen. It, therefore, cannot be said to be a legal defect so as to set aside their termination of services.
3. The most important question for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the Union had withdrawn the dispute relating to the termination of the services of the three workmen by a settlement dated 4th October 1972. The admitted position is that the application, giving rise to the impugned order was not withdrawn specifically. The question, therefore, that requires determination is as to whether the parties had withdrawn the application, giving rise to the present appeal. In this connection, the first point that may be noted is that the Management had no notice of the application filed in the Labour Court on 23-9. 1972. The Court had ordered, on receipt of the application under section 25-A of the Ordinance, to issue notice for 11th October 1972. There is nothing on the record of the case and none has been pointed out by the learned Advocate for the appellant, that the Management knew about the institution of the application under section 25-A of the Ordinance on the 4, of October 1972, when the settlement was arrived at. All that Mr. Ali Amjad, the learned Advocate for the appellant, had pointed out is that the Management knew that there was a dispute between the three workmen and the Management through the grievance notice sent on 26th August 1972. It is true, the Management knew about the existence of a dispute relating to the termination of the services of three workmen. It may be mentioned at this stage that one of the three workmen, namely, Sher Khan Mast had settled his accounts and gone away and, therefore, the Union did not press his case for re-instatement.
4. I have come to the conclusion that the dispute relating to the re-instatement of the two workmen was withdrawn under the settlement of 4th October 1972, for the reasons which I would presently mention. I the first place, a perusal of the settlement dated 4th October 1972, would disclose that the settlement was arrived at because of the situation that arose as a result of the termination of the services of the three workmen. When the Management terminated the services of the three workmen, strike took place on 22nd August 1972. The Management got a propitiatory order against the strike and the workers resumed work. The opening paragraph of the settlement further shows that the Management and the Union decided to compromise all the disputes between the Management and the Union. In the second place, it is noteworthy that though the application under section 25-A of the Ordinance was filed on behalf of the Union under the signature of the General Secretary, Mr. Syed Mohiuddin, he did not have the courage to appear before the Court and state that the settlement dated 4th October 1972, did not compromise the issue relating to the three workmen. The application under section 25-A of the Ordinance by the Union was made on 23rd September 1972, when there was no compromise between the Union and the Management. The Union having compromised all the issues between it and the Management on 4th October 1972, though Mr. Mohiuddin was one of the signatories on behalf of the Union, did not think it proper to challenge the compromise: At any rate, Mr. Mohiuddin was not prepared to submit himself for cross-examination before the learned Labour Court. In the third place, the two workers in their affidavits did not state or gave any reason that the settlement dated 4th October 1972, was not binding on them. They referred to other settlements between the Union and the Management but refrained to say anything about the settlement dated 4th October 1972.
5. Mr. Ali Amjad, the learned Advocate for the appellant, contended that the settlement arrived at between the Union and the Management on 4th October 1972, was not binding on the individual workman, who bad an individual right to make application for his re-instatement under section 25- A of the Ordinance. It is true the individual workmen had his right guaranteed to make a grievance petition against his termination o services under section 25-A of the Ordinance. The present application is not by the individual workman, but the Union. It was for the Union to make out a case that the settlement of 4th October 1972 did not include the dispute about these three workmen. As I have already said, the General Secretary of the Union refrained from disputing the contents of the written statement filed by the Management on 16th October 1972. It may be noted at this stage that the written statement was filed immediately after the first notice, which was given on- 11th October 1972. It is also note--worthy that on behalf of the Management one Lt.-Col. Retired Abdul Waheed filed his affidavit. In his affidavit, he relied upon the reply statement dated 16th October 1972. No question was put to Lt.-Col. (Retired) Abdul Waheed, in cross-examination, to suggest that heth settlement dated 4th October 1972, did not compromise the dispute relating to the termination of the services of the three workmen. In the reply statement filed by the Management, Lt.-Col. (Retired) Abdul Waheed had specifically stated, relying on the settlement dated 4th October 1972, that the dispute relating to the three workmen had been settled. On the face of it, the dispute relating to these three workmen was not specifically mentioned in the settlement dated 4th October 1972, because admittedly, the Management did not know about the existence of the Court proceedings.
6. In view of my finding that the settlement of 4th October 1972, settled among other disputes, the dispute relating to the termination of the services of the three workmen, it is not necessary to decide the effect of want of reason in the termination letter dated 21st August 1972.
7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the award of the learned Labour Court is maintained.