JUDGMENT This is an appeal against the award dated 2-12-1974 of Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Multan. The appellant-Union filed application under section 32(1-A) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for giving an award in respect of demand notice dated 10-10-1974 and Strike Notice dated 24-10-1974 served on the respondent in consequence of conciliation proceedings having failed between the parties. The learned Presiding Officer dismissed the petition on the following grounds: (1) That the appellant-Union having served full tenure of its office should not be permitted to raise frivolous demands at the verge of its retirement when a referendum was admittedly due for the election of new Collective Bargaining Agent. (2) That the Schedule of demands attached to the petition was not exact reproduction of the demands put forward in the demand notice. (3) That all the demands in the substance stand regulated under the statutory provisions of the Labour Laws or they relate to the settlement already reached between the parties.
Ground No. 1.--In the present case demand notice dated 10-10-1974 and Strike Notice dated 24-10- 1974, were served on the respondent, and as a result thereof conciliation proceedings started but no settlement could be arrived at. The tenure of the appellant-Union expired on 14-11-1974. It was contended by the appellant's Representative that when the demand notice and the Strike Notice were given, the appellant-Union was Collective Bargaining Agent and was, therefore, entitled to raise the industrial dispute. It was also submitted that before the new Collective Bargaining Agent had come into existence, the appellant-Union, which is a registered Trade Union. 1975 Rashid Ahmad v. Zainab Bibi (M. Jamil Asghar, Appellate Tribunal) has been recognised by the respondent and as such was competent to persue the industrial dispute already raised till the new Collective Bargaining Agent was elected, ln this connection reference was made to section 52 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, which reads as follows: "52. Performance of functions till Collective Bargaining Agent ascertained. Any act or function which is by this Ordinance required to be performed b> or has been conferred upon a Collective Bargaining Agent may until a Collective Bargaining Agent has been certified under the provisions of this Ordinance be performed by a Registered Trade Union which has been recognised by the employers."
2. At the time when the demand notice and strike notice were served! the appellant-Union had a vested right to raise the Industrial dispute and'"4 that right continued till the new Collective Bargaining Agent was elected.
3. In view of the above, I set aside the findings of the learned Labour Court and hold that the appellant-Union bad the right to raise Industrial dispute. 4. --It was admitted before the Labour Court with the petition under section 32(1-A) of the reproduction of the demands put forward in also admitted that all the demands in substance statutory provisions of the Labour Laws or already arrived at between the parties. There- be made the subject-matter cf the industrialGrounds Nos. 2 and 3. that the demands attached Ordinance were not the exact the demand notice. It was already stood regulated m the they related to the settlement fore, those demands cannot dispute.
5. In view of the above, I find no merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed.