DECISION This is an appeal against an award of the learned Presiding Officer of Sind Labour Court No. III, Karachi dated May 5, 1973, whereby the leamed Labour Court dismissed the application filed under section 32 (1-A) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called the Ordinance). The application contained the following two demands :-- Demand No. 1. Mr. Zafar Ali, Plant Engineer, accused of using vulgar language for the female relations of Mr. Amir Bux, a member of the Union, should be removed from service. Demand No. 2. The Management should give a written undertaking that the Officers of the Company will not behave in uncivilised manner with any employee in future.
2. The learned Labour Court based his conclusion, relying on a complaint filed by the President of the Abbott Laboratories (Pakistan) Limited Employees' Union (hereinafter called the Union) against the General Manager, Mr. M. B. Sheikh, Abbott Laboratories (Pakistan) Limited (hereinafter called the Company). The complaint was filed under section 54 of the Ordinance. The learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the evidence on record did not prove that Zafar Ali had abused Amir Bux. Mr. F. M. Azad, the learned Representative for the Union, contended that the learned Labour Court should not have relied on the order of the learned Magistrate in coming to the conclusion that Zafar Ali had not abused Amir Bux, as the complaint was not between Amir Bux and Zafar Ali. There is no force in this contention. The complaint was filed by the President of the Abbott Laboratories (Pakistan) Limited Employees' Union. Similarly, the application under section 32(1-A) of the Ordinance was filed by the Abbott Laboratories (Pakistan)
Limited Employees' Union. The Union had full opportunity to lead evidence in the complaint filed by it. It is now too late for the Union to say that the finding of the Magistrate as to whether Zafar Ali had abused Amir Bux or not, is not binding. I would hold that the learned Labour Court has correctly relied on the finding of the learned Magistrate.
3. In the second place, Mr. Azad, contended that the demands raised amount to an industrial dispute. Industrial Dispute is defined under section 2 (xxiii) as under :-- "Industrial Dispute" means any dispute or difference between employers and employers or between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is concerned with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or the conditions of work of any person.
4. Demand No. 1 in effect relates to the removal of Zafar Ali. This! cannot be said to relate to "the employment or non-employment or the termsU of employment or the conditions of work of any person." I would hold that! Demand No. 1 .is not an industrial dispute. 5.
Similarly,Demand No. 2 cannot also be said to relate to "the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or the conditions of work of any person." I find no force in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed.