DECISION This is an appeal against an award of the learned Presiding Officer of Labour Court No. V, Karachi, dated 27-12-1973, whereby the learned Labour Court granted some of the demands of the respondent-Union and rejected the others. A so-called settlement was arrived at between the parties on 17th February 1973 and it is said to be countersigned before the Conciliator on 20th June 1973. The said settlement was acted upon in respect of bonus and increase in pay. Settlement is defined under section 2 (xxiv) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called the Ordinance), to mean : ............. a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding, and includes an agreement between an employer and his workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of any conciliation proceeding, where such agreement is in writing, has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof has been sent to the Provincial Government, the conciliator and such other person as may be prescribed."
2. Under section 2 {xix) of the Ordinance, "Prescribed" means "prescribed by rules". The said settlement cannot be said to be a settlement as would appear from paragraph 2, of the grounds of appeal. The conciliation proceedings had failed on 22nd January 1973 and the said settlement was arrived at on 17th February 1973. There is a distinction between settlement and an agreement.
Certain formalities have to be complied with before an agreement can be said to be an agreement within the meaning of the definition given under section 2 (xx/v) of the Ordinance.
Admittedly, no copy of the same had been sent to the Provincial Government, the conciliator and such other person as may be prescribed. The learned Labour Court, therefore, rightly held that it was not settlement within the meaning of the definition given under section 2 {xxiv) of the Ordinance. Mere admission of the President of the Union, who had signed it, does not confer 4 on the said settlement the solemnity of a settlement unless the other ingredients had been complied with. I would, therefore, hold that the said agreement was not an agreement within the meaning of the definition given under section 2 (xxiv) of the Ordinance.
3. The appellant-company did not lead any evidence, as it was too sure of the settlement. The award, therefore, on the demand against the Company cannot be challenged. The appeal is dismissed.