' The petitioner Union reached a settlement with respondent-Company on 26-9-1989. Clause XXI of that settlement provided as follows:- "The Management shall implement the provisions of Notification No, SOG-II-6-129/73, dated 16-7- 1973 under which pulses/cloth at subsidized rates are to be provided by the Company. In case the said notification is inoperative the decision to that effect shall be furnished by the Management within two months from the date of this settlement. The parties may challenge the decision in an appropriate forum if the difference of opinion on its implementation is not settled mutually. In case the Management is unable to furnish the said decision within the stipulated period the implementation of the notification allowing the subsidy shall become operative."
2. Accordingly the respondent-Management sent a letter on 22-11-1989 which is produced below:- "Kindly refer to Clause XXI (Supply of Pulses and Cloth) of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 26th September, 1989 stipulating that the company shall implement the provisions of Notification No, SOG-II6-129/73, dated 16-7-1973 pertaining to supply of pulses and cloth on subsidised rates, provided the said notification was found to be operative.
' In this connection please find herewith a copy of the decision of Punjab Labour Court No, 2, Lahore announced on May, 10, 1975 in the matter of KSB Employees Union v. KSB Pumps Hassanabdal (Industrial Dispute No, 35/7 under section 32(1-A) of I.R.O., 1969). The relevant portion of the decision reads as follows and I quote: "So far as the 4th demand is concerned petitioner's union has failed to prove that pulses and cloth to workers is given anywhere in the country not to speak of the locality it was an executive order by the Governor having no legal force. I, therefore, reject this part of demand No,
4. As regards the provisions in the fair price shop are concerned, management is directed to provide all the seven items such as Ghee, Sugar etc. If it is allowed by the Fair Price Shops Ordinance." unquote I hope this matter also stands resolved in accordance with the Memorandum of Settlement.
(Sd.)
(M.A. Zafar), Company Secretary."
3. The petitioner Union prays that "the above referred clause XXI of the settlement may kindly be interpreted and the order of the respondent dated 22nd November, 1989 may be set aside by declaring the same illegal, unjust and improper. It is further prayed that after giving a favourable interpretation the respondent-management may kindly be directed to implement the said clause of settlement as agreed."
4. I have had both the parties submit their written arguments besides hearing the arguments of the counsel for the respondent.
5. A number of objections have been raised as to the legality and maintainability etc. Of this petition I would however like to deal with its merits first. If the application lacks merit on facts then it would be pointless to consider its maintainability or legality etc. 6.The parties had agreed that in case of difference of opinion on the implementation the petitioner may challenge the decision of the management in an appropriate forum. The petitioner has therefore moved this Commission for seeking interpretation of provisions of settlement. The petitioner states that the first sentence of clause No,XXI(ibid) clearly concedes that principally the management had agreed to implement the notification dated 16-7-1973. They had accepted that the notification is operative. According to the petitioner's opinion the notification was never withdrawn or cancelled and is still operative and being implemented in factories, including those owned by the Government. The petitioner further, states that letter of respondent dated 22-11-1989 is incorrect and not binding upon the rights of the petitioner. The counsel for the respondent states that at the time of writing down clause XXI, of the settlement, the management did not have the decision of Punjab Labour Court No,2, or the notification in its possession on the negotiating table.
However they were of the view that it is inoperative. It was therefore concluded that they will furnish the decision within two months. They had made their reservation very clear. The same notification was the subject of litigation between the same parties, in Punjab Labour Court No,2, Lahore in the matter KSB Employees Union v. KSB Pumps, in dispute No, 35/7 decided on 10-5-1975. In that order the learned Punjab Labour Court No,2, Lahore had observed that it (the notification) is an executive order by the Governor having no legal force. Similarly the Lahore High Court in an unreported decision on a writ petition decided by Justice Dr. Naseem Hassan Shah in P. Leiner and Sons v. Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Lahore and 7 others, decided that "The directives were issued on account of gentlemanly agreement between the Government and industry, and have moral force only and their non-observance is not visited by penal 'sanction of law."
7. In this view of the matter the instant notification is not legally operative and has no legal force behind it because as admitted in the said writ petition by the Assistant Advocate-General, the notification was not passed in pursuance of any law. It is merely an administrative order and no penalty is prescribed in case of its non-compliance. Since the notification is legally inoperative, The petitioner has no case. I, therefore, dismiss this petition being without any legal merit. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.