DECISION These are two applications under section 50 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called the Ordi nance) for interpretation of an Agreement dated 25-2-1972, and a Settlement dated 6-3-1972 entered into between National Refinery Limited and National Refinery Employees' Union, and the Pakistan Refinery Limited and Pakistan Refinery Employees' Union, respectively.
2. The references have been made by the Secretary Labour, Government of Sind for resolving the difficulty as the benefits given in the two cases, that is, under the Agreement and the Settlement are not being given to workers employed through Contractors. The workers under section 2(xxviii) of the Ordinance to be the workers of the Management, and, therefore entitled to the benefits given to Union Members.
3. I have heard the learned Representatives of the parties. On behalf of the Management two main Preliminary Objections have been taken which I propose to dispose of separately.
4. It has been contended in the first place that the application is not maintainable as it has not been made by any of the parties to the Agreement or Settlement. This is so. The Secretary Labour, Government of Sind is no party. The best on his behalf that can be said is that he is very much interested in the interpretation of the Agreement and the Settlement as the Government on the whole is interested to maintain industrial peace. Section 50 of the Ordinance runs as under:-- "(1) If any difficulty or doubt arise as to the interpretation of any provisions of an award or settlement, it shall be referred to the Tribunal constituted under this Ordinance. (2) The Tribunal to which a matter is referred under subsection (1) shall after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, decide the matter and its decision shall be final and binding on the parties."
5. The key word under section 50 of the Ordinance, quoted above, is the "parties". In this connection reference may be made to section 39 of the Ordinance. Section 39 deals with Settlement and Awards on whom binding. It runs as under:-- "(1) A Settlement arrived at in the course of a conciliation proceeding, or an award of an arbitrator published under section 31, or an award or decision of a Labour Court delivered under section 37 or the decision of a Tribunal under section 38 shall-- (a) be binding on all parties to the industrial dispute; (b)be binding on all other parties summoned to appear in any proceedings before a Labour Court as parties to the industrial dispute, unless the Court specifically otherwise directs in respect of any such party; (c) be binding on the heirs, successors or assignees of the employer in respect of the establishment to which the industrial dispute relates where an employer is one of the parties to that dispute; and (id) where a Collective Bargaining Agent is one of the parties to the dispute, be binding on all workmen who were employed in the establishment or industry to which the industrial dispute relates on the date on which the dispute first arose or who are employed therein after the date. (2) A Settlement arrived at by agreement betweea the employer and a Trade Union otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceedings shall be binding on the parties to the agreement."
6. The conclusion that I would draw is that the term "parties" in section 50 of the Ordinance means parties on whom the interpretation will be binding. It cannot be binding on parties who have not participated in the Agreement or Settlement, I would hold that the Reference is not valid as it has not been ma^e by any of the parties to the Agreement or Settlement.
2. In the second place, it has been contended that under section 7-A of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 (hereinafter called the Act of 1952) the jurisdiction of Labour Courts and the Tribunal is barred. There is much force in this contention. It has not been denied before me by Mr. Shafiq Qureshi and Mr. A. Rashid appearing before me for the Workers of the Contractors that the two concerns are not essential services. In this connection on behalf of the Management, reliance has been placed on a case decided by High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, in Manzoor Ali Rizvi v. National Bank oj Pakistan, Karachi. In that case Dorab Patel, J., held that where the Act is extended to any employment the result will be to oust the jurisdiction of Labour Courts. In the present case the position is that the two concerns have been treated and declared as Essential Services for the purposes of the Act.
3. In order to consider the contention that section 7-A of the Act of 1952 bars the jurisdiction of the Labour Courts and the Tribunal, two provisions of the Act of 1952 would be necessary to reproduce.
They are sections 3 and 7- A of the Act of 1952. They run as under:-- "Section 3.--(1) This Act shall apply to every employment under the Central Government and, subject to the provisions of subsection (2) to any employment or class of employment which the Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, declare to be an employment or class of employment to which this applies. (2) No declaration under subsection (1) shall be made in respect of any employment or class of employment unless the Central Government is of opinon that such employment or class of employment is essential-- (a) for securing the defence or the security of Pakistan or any part thereof, or (b) for the maintenance of such supplies or services as relate to any of the matters .with respect to which the parliament has power to make laws and are essential to the life of the community. (2) A declaration under subsection (1) shall remain in force for a period of six months which the Central Government may by notification in the official Gazette, extend for further period not exceeding six months at any time. Section 7-A.--The provisions of this Act shall have effect, notwithstanding to the contrary contained in the Trade Unions Act, 1926 or the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959 or any other law.
4. Mr. Shafiq Qureshi and Mr. Rashid for the Contractor's workers, contended that section 7-A of the Act of 1952, will have no application as the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959, had been repealed in 1968 by the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968 which in turn had been repealed by the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. There is not much force in this contention. I cannot ignore the words, "or any other law** appearing in section 7-A of the Act of 1952. The words "or any other law" are wide enough to include the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. I would hold that section 7-A of the Act of 1952 relying on the authority of Sind & Baluchistan High Court, bars the jurisdiction of the Labour Appellate Tribunal to interpret the two documents i.e. the Agreement and the Settlement.
5. The References, for the reasons given above, are dismissed as not maintainable. The leamed Representatives of the parties addressed me at some length on the merit of the case but it is not necessary to deal with those points as the applications fail on legal grounds.