JUDGMBNT This is petitition under section 50 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for interpretation of the award dated 30-6-1965 which came into operation on 19-7-1965, when it was published in the official Gazette. It was to remain in force for a period of one year.
2. Rehmatullah was employed in the Penicillin Factory, Iskandarabad, District Mianwali. His services were terminated by the Management of the aforementioned factory on 15-6-1974. Alongwith him some other employees were also removed from service. The Trade Union of which all the dismissed employees including Rehmatullah petitioner were members, raised an industrial dispute, as a result of which the aforementioned award was given by the Industrial Court, West Pakistan (Central Zone, Lahore). According to the said award Rehmatullah petitioner and the others were directed to be reinstated with full benefits with effect from the date of their dismissal. Against the award the Management went up in appeal to the High Court and that is why the award could not be implemented. During the pendency of the appeal a settlement dated 10-3-1972 was arrived at between the Management of the factory and the Employees' Union of which Rehmatullah petititioner was the member. According to that settlement it was agreed that all the dismissed employees including Rehmatullah petitioner be re-instated with immediate effect with one month's salary. Thereafter the Employees* Union made an application to the High Court that in view of the aforementioned settlement the appeal be decided in terms of the above settlement.
The Management also submitted a petition for disposal of the appeal as withdrawn. The High Court vide order dated 19-3-1974 dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. After that Rehmatullah petitioner, who had already been re-instated filed an application under section 51 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for the recovery of the money due under the award. The learned Labour Court vide its order dated 3-2-1975 dismissed the application, with the following observations :-- "The award was nullified because they entered into a settlement in Mareh 1972 and in pursuance of the said settlement Rehmatullah petitioner was re-employed by the employer. No cause of action arises in favour of the petitioner to recover any money under the award. After the settlement the award became dead letter. It does not exist and no relief can be claimed under it.** + 3. It was contended by the learned representative of the petitioner that settlement dated 10-3-1972 was not * valid in view of section 4 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
Ordinance, 1968, which reads as follows "Modification of Standing Orders.--The Standing Orders can be modified by means of a collective agreement and not otherwise : Provided that no such agreement shall have the effect of taking away or diminishing any right or benefit available to the workmen under the provisions of the Schedule.** 4. In the present case the back benefits were given to Rehmatullah peti tioner under the award as a result of an industrial dispute raised by Union and not under the aforementioned Ordinance. If back benefits had been claimed under the said Ordinance, then it could not have been the subject-matter of an industrial dispute. In any case there has been no modification of the Standing Orders and, therefore, I find no force in the contention so raised.
5. The leamed representative also contended that the Management could not have altered to the disadvantage of Rehmatullah petitioner the condition of service applicable to him during the pendency of the appeal in the High Court. At the relevant time section 50 of Ordinance of 1959 was applicable. The said section is equivalent to section 47 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, according to which no employer*can alter the conditions of service of a workman during the pendency of conciliation proceedings or proceedings before an Arbitrator, a Labour Court or Tribunal in respect of an industrial dispute without their consent. In the instant case it is not the employer alone who has altered the conditions of service of Rehmatullah petitioner to his disadvantage. The change took place as a result of the Mohd. Bakhsh Malik v. Singer Sewing Machine Co. (M. Jamil Asghar, Appellate Tribunal,) settlement dated 10-3-1972 arrived at by mutual consent between the Union of which the petitioner was a member and the employer. This section contemplates the unilateral action of the employer and not of the Union and the employer. In view of the above this contention is also repelled.
6. The learned Representative further contended that the settlement dated 10-5-1972 was not valid because it had deprived Rehmatullah petitioner of back benefits and as such was not made in good faith. In support of his contention he relied on the judgment of High Court in the case, Messrs Attock Oil Co. v. The Supreme Body of Oilfields League and Refinery Union, Rawalpindi (1), wherein it was observed :-- "It is the duty of the Court to examine each agreement carefully to satisfy itself that it was made in good faith and was not intended to defeat just and reasonable demands put forth by the workers. When the Court is so satisfied it is only then that the settlement can be made the basis for the award of the Court." From the perusal of the facts of the present case I find that the settlement was not made in bad faith because during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court there was a misapprehension in the mind of the Union that the appeal might be accepted, which would have resulted in causing great hardships to the petitioner and the other dismissed employees. In order to remove the hardship the settlement dated 10-3-1972 was arrived at whereby the employer had agreed to re-employ the dismissed employees including Rehmatullah petitioner with immediate effect with one month's salary. That is why the Union had also filed an application before the High Court praying that the appeal be decided in terms of the settlement. I also find that the employees of the factory had received benefits under this settlement in so far as they including Rehmatullah petitioner had been re-employed with one month's pay In view of the above the employees now cannot be allowed to challenge the settlement as bad in law on legal grounds. I am fortified in this view by the judgment of the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal in the case Abdus Sattar and another v. Pakistan Oxygen Limited, Karachi and 2 others (2). The same view was followed by this Tribunal in the case American Express International Banking Corporation v. American Express Staff Union (3). In the result this contention of the learned Representative is also rejected.
7. From the above it is clear that the award dated 30-6-1965 is no longer in existence because of the settlement dated 10-3-1972 and, therefore, it cannot be interpreted. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (1) PLD 1970 Lah. 122 (2)
1973 PLC 125 (3) PLJ 1974 Tr. C. (Lah.) 415