ORDER This is an appeal against the award dated 8-10-1973 of Punjab Labour Court No. 3, Lyallpur.
2. Government Transport Service Labour Union (Regd.), Lyallpur, appellant, filed an application raising an industrial dispute containing 31 demands. Punjab Road Transport Board, Lahore, respondent, not only resisted the application on merits but also raised the following preliminary objections:-- (1) Strike notice was not served within a period of 7 days from the end of the period specified in section 26(2) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. (2) That no conciliation proceedings took place as was required under section 30 of the aforementioned Ordinance. In view of the above it was contended that no industrial dispute existed as it was not raised in the prescribed manner. The learned Court below upheld preliminary objection No, 2 and dismissed the
3. In the present case communication Exh. P-1, dated 9-6-73 was given by the appellant-Uniou as required under section 26(1) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Since the bilateral negotiations failed strike notice was given by the appellant Union on 26-6-73. The conciliator sent reply Exh. R-l, dated 10-7-73 to the effects:-- "Reference your strike notice, dated 26-6-73 (received in this office on 28-6-73). You may recollect that you had served a strike notice on 5-6-1973 on which the undersigned had proceeded in accordance with the provisions of section 30 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. In conciliation meeting, dated 21-6-73 the undersigned had declared the conciliation proceedings, as failure as contemplated under section 32 of the said Ordinance. After failure of the conciliation proceedings on the above referred strike notice either the Union might have gone on strike or have made an application to the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute as laid down under section 32(1-A) ibid. ln view of the above the undersigned is not in a position to start conciliation proceedings on your strike notice, dated 26-6-73 which is rregular and ineffective being unlawful." The appellant-Union sent reply Exh. P-2 dated 16-7-73 to the effect that the strike notice, dated 5-6-73 was with respect to Industrial Dispute No. 9/73, which was pending before the Labour Court whereas the strike notice dated 26-6-73 was with respect to the instant industrial dispute wherein the demands were not the same as in the pending Industrial Dispute.
The conciliator, therefore, refused to start the conciliation proceedings and informed the appellant-Union of his decision vide letter Exh. R-2 dated 8-8-73. That letter reads as follows:-- "Reference your strike notice, dated 26-6-73 and correspondence resting with this office letter No. ADC/SR/7566, dated 10-7-73 on the subject noted above. On perusal of the whole case and the provisions of section 44 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 the undersigned has concluded that no notice of strike can be served by any party to an industrial dispute while an appeal to Labour Court is pending in respect of any matter constituting such industrial dispute as stipulated under the said section of the Ordinance. Because of the fact that an industrial dispute of the parties is pending with the Hon'able Labour Court the undersigned is unable to start any proceeding in the matter. The papers concerned, therefore, consigned to record." The appellant- Union then wrote a letter Exh. P-3, dated 9-8-73 informing the conciliator that his order was wrong and without lawful authority because the demands in the instant case were quite different to the demands in the pending industrial dispute.
4. It was contended by the Respresentative of the appellant-Union that the conciliator under Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 had no jurisdiction to determine the validity of strike notice under section 44 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and, therefore, it was wrong on his part not to start conciliation proceedings. Under section 6(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968 the Conciliation Officer had jurisdictionj to satisfy himself as to the validity of the strike notice but under Industrial^ Disputes Ordinance, 1969, this provision has been omitted. In view of the! above the action of the conciliator not to start conciliation proceedings was1 withouout lawful auihority. Under these circumstances the appellant-Union! had no other alternative left but to approach the Labour Court.
5. As regards the second preliminary objection that the strike notice was not served within a period of 7 days from the end of the period specified in section 26(2) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, I find that after a communication under section 26(1) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 raising 31 demands, Mr. Abdur Rehman Ansari, Assistant Director, Labour Welfare, Punjab Road Transport Board, Lahore, held meetings with the Representatives of the appellant-Uunion on 5-4-73, 10-4-73 and 27-4-73 but no action was taken on the demands. Even the Union had not been informed about it although the Road Transport Board had agreed to consider some of the demands and issue orders to Lyallpur. The appellant-Union, thereupon, issued demand notice Exh. P-1, dated 9-6-
73. Since no settlement was arrived at the strike notice was given on 26-6-73, which was well without 7 days after the lapse of negotiation period of 10 days. In view of the above this preliminary objection is also overruled.
6. I accordingly, accept the appeal, set aside the award of the Court below and remand the case back to it for adjudication of the industrial dispute in accordance with law.