DECISION ' An application under section 34 of IRO was filed before the learned Labour Court. At Sukkur on behalf of the present respondent who happens to be the CBA of the union. Their contention was that they had submitted a Charter of Demands before the authorities and a meeting was held with the present appellants Nos, 2 and 3 on 6-2-1989. Minutes were prepared and the demands were duly considered and accepted including points Nos, 15 and 21. The said demands however are not being implemented though a number of vacancies had arisen and had been also duly filled in. The Reply Statement on behalf of the respondent was that the respondent No, 2 had only made recommendations as borne on the record and sent the same to respondent No,1. As nothing was finalized and no settlement arrived at the application under section 34, IRO was not competent.
2. The learned Labour Court treated the Minutes as a settlement. I am afraid it was hardly warranted. The Minutes are before me and all that happened in regard to dispute for demands Nos, 15 and 21 was that the respondent No, 2 had only made certain recommenations against that column saying that preference should be given to the heirs of the deceased. There is no settlement recorded. Apart from the question whether the respondents Nos, 1 and 2 could be competent to sign on behalf of the department otherwise too it does not have the signatures of the parties. It is not a settlement at all.
3. Petition under section 34 could be filed only on three grounds i,e, If there was to be an enforcement of some right under any law, award or settlement. It does not come under any of these three heads. I will, therefore,, set aside the order passed by the Labour Court and allow the appeal.