DECISION This is an appeal against an award of the learned Presiding Officer of Sind Labour Court No. II, Karachi, dated July 4, 1973, whereby the learned Labour Court dismissed the application of the appellant filed under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, ;1969 (hereinafter called the Ordinance), on the ground that the same was not maintainable as the appellant's remedy lay in following the procedure prescribed under Standing Order 18 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 (hereinafter called the Standing Orders Ordinance). The appellant admitted in cross-examination that he had not given any notice of his grievance to the Management, as required under Standing Order 18 of the Standing Orders Ordinance. The cause of action to the appellant, as alleged in his application, arose on 22nd November 1971. He made an application before the learned Labour Court on 31st January 1972.
2. I have heard the appellant in person. I do not see any reason to take a different view than what has been taken by the learned Labour Court.! The provisions of Standing Order 18 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, hasU been held by the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan in the case of Saleern-j sons Limited (1), to be mandatory. In that view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed. The award of the learned Labour Court is maintained.
3. The appellant's appeal was called at 9 a.m. The appellant requested for time to bring his Representative and I allowed him time till l2 Noon, but he was not able to bring his Representative. I, therefore, heard him in person. (1) PLD 1973 Kar. 1 1974 PLC 182 [Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind] Present: Inamullah Khan, Appellate Tribunal STAFF UNION versus AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN , heard on 24th October 1974. Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIlI of 1969)-- -------- S. 32(1*A)--Jurisdiction of Labour Court -- Managerial functions of Management--Not to be interfered by Court--Demand regarding procedure and tiers of promotion, held, rightly rejected by Labour Court, [p. 183J4 Malik Mohammad Saeed for Appellant. ,Nizam Ahmed for Respondent. Date of hearing: 24th October 1974. Decision This is an appeal against an award dated the 2nd of August 1974 passed by the Presiding Officer of Labour Court No. V, in an application under section 32(1-A) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (hereinafter called the 'Ordinance'). The facts giving rise to the appeal briefly put are these. The Union on the 8th of May 1973 raised as many as five demands. One of the demands was that pay scales of Classes III and IV Employees be revised as agreed in a settlement between Union and the Bank Management on the 13th of September 1972. In this connection Mr. Malik Saeed contended that the learned Court has not given effect to the settlement dated 13th September 1972. The learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that the Bank has implemented the settlement dated 13th September 1972 and, therefore, rejected the demand. The settlement dated the 13th of September 1972 is still in operation. All that was agreed under the said settlement was that the pay scales of Class III and IV Employees will be revised in accordance to the pay scales of I. D. B. P.
(Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan), with minor adjustment if similar post not available in I. D.
B. P. This has been done by the respondent. The learned Court has given good reasons for rejecting demand No. I. It is, accordingly, maintained.
2. In the second place Mr. Malik Mohammad Saeed contended that the Union had been seriously prejudiced because they discontinued the strike and if they were to go on strike now it would be illegal, and, therefore, would not be entitled to claim pay for the same period. The position in law is that the strike after they have gone to the Labour Court would be illegal. The question of claiming pay for the period does not arise as they have not gone on any strike. Moreover it is a mixed question of fact and law which cannot be taken at this stage in appeal.
3. In the third place Malik Mohammad Saeed contended that the Bank had agreed to allow Class III and IV Employees, to purchase new houses from private parties without any condition. The cost of the land under individual agreement to be purchased was to be paid by the Bank to these Employees as the Bank had accepted the demand without any condition the question of proving the same did not arise. The learned Court, therefore, should not have come to the conclusion that it was not proved. Mr. Nizam for the Bank conceded that "not proved" is un-intentional it should have been "not pressed". I accordingly modify this portion of the award and hold that the error was not intentional but only a clerical mistake.
4. Lastly it was contended that the promotion of Junior Assistant and Assistant of the higher post be made 100%. Accountarits/Investigation Officers be promoted against the post of Senior Accountant/Senior Investigation Officer in the resultant vacancies caused by the promotion of Senior Accountants/ Senior Investigation Officers. In this connection Mr. Malik Mohammad Saeed submitted that the spirit behind the Industrial Relations Ordinance now is to give a right to the workers to raise such demands. It is true demand like this can be raised but whether it can be granted or not is a matter for the Court. The Court cannot interfere in the Managerial A functions of the Management and this is what the learned Court has held. I would repel the contention of the learned Advocate for the appellant and maintain the award of the learned Labour Court with the modification as already stated above in respect of Demand No. 2.
5. In the result the appeal is dismissed.