1. Abdul Majid Rathore, petitioner, has brought this petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969 (hereinafter called the I. R. O.) for getting order dated 6-10-1972 passed by respondent No. 1 set aside and issuing direction to respondent No. 1 for posting the petitioner as a Pay Clerk, C-III D. G. Khan. The facts stated briefly are that an ex-cadre post of pay clerk fell vacant in the Construction Division and requisi--tion was made to the department in which the petitioner was working as Senior Counter for sending any person on deputation and the petitioner was sent to Dera Ghazi Khan to be appointed as pay clerk in the Construc--tion Division. When the petitioner reached D. G. Khan, he was sent back on the ground that another man had been posted who had become surplus. The petition is based upon an order of the Member (Finance), Railway Board, which is described by the petitioner as a settlement. The application has been opposed by the respondent and in the reply objections have been raised that there is no award or settlement, therefore, section 25-A is not applicable, that on the basis of the noting on which the petitioner relies, a non-inarticulate Senior Counter can be posted on the ex-cadre post and as the petitioner is a matriculate, he cannot be given that post. It has also been contended that the petitioner is not a senior most Counter in the establishment.
2. In support of his case the petitioner has appeared as his own witness and on behalf of respondent Mr. S. M. Zafar, Assistant Treasurer, Cash and Pay Branch, P. W. R. Lahore, has been examined. Copy of demand notice P-1, copy of extract of para. 10(i.e) of Dy. C. A. O. GB's notice approved by F.M./ Rly.
3. Board, copy of letter P-3, copy of letter P-4 sent by Executive Engineer and copy endorsed to Chief Engineer, SAC, Lahore, copy of application of the petitioner P-5, reply to the application P-6 have also been produced. The statement of the petitioner is that he is Senior Cash Counter to the Railway Pay Cash Office, that on 12-3-69 P. W. R. Accounts Welfare Association sent list of demands, copy of which is P-1 to the Management whereupon a settlement was arrived at between the Union and the Management copy of which is P-2. He has further said that according to the settlement it was decided that Senior Cash Counter would be sent for being posted on ex-cadre post as Pay Clerk in the Construction Division. He adds that the original letter P-2 was not a settlement in the true serve but an office noting approved by F. M. Railway Board and that as a result of the said order he was posted as pay clerk in the construction division of Dora Ghazi Khan,-vide postal order P-3 and when he reached Dera Ghazi Khan to take charge of his now post Xen. No. 3 of Construction Division, P. W. R. Told him that Abdul Majid, respondent No. 2 had already taken charge of the post and he (the witness) was sent back with an order, copy of which is P-4. The witness has proved copy of his grievance petition P-5 and to reply P-6 to his petition. He further says that there is no legal restriction for appointing a matriculate to Senior Cash Counter as Pay Clerk in the ex- cadre post. The statement of Mr. S. M. Zafar, RW is that no settlement was made between the Manage--ment and the Union and that P-2 is only a noting of an office order and is not a settlement. He further says that according to Clause IV of P-2, non-martriculate Senior Cash Counter could be proposed for the ex-cadre post of Pay Clerk arising in the Construction Division and according to Clause III, F. A. Candidates were made eligible for the post of Pay Clerk in the ratio of 2 : 1.
4. Section 25-A applies if any right guaranteed by any law, settlement or award has been infringed.
5. As has been mentioned in facts of the case, the petitioner relies upon P-2, which according to him and his counsel is a settle--ment, but in reality this is not. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that since settlement was made pursuant to the demand notice P-1, therefore, this is a settlement. This is also wrong. There is nothing in P-1 to the effect that senior counters would be posted in ex-cadre post of pay cleric in the Construction Division, P-2 obviously is the order of the Member Finance and by no stretch of imagination can be designated as a settlement. Settle-- ment is defined in section2, clause (xxiv), I. R. O ors a settlement: arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings or an agreement made between an employer and his workman otherwise than in the course of any conciliation 4 proceedings where such agreement is in writing, has been signed by the parties, and copy sent to the Provincial Government, the conciliator and such other person as may be prescribed. As there is no mention in the notice of demand P-1 that senior counters would be appointed on ex-cadre post of pay clerk in the Construction Division and as it has not been proved that any notice of conciliation was given to the conciliator, P-2 even if it had been an agreement B cannot be said to be a settlement as defined in I. R. O. If it is to be taken as an agreement, although this is not so, even then it cannot be regarded as a settlement, because it has not been signed by both the parties and it has not been proved that copy of it was sent to the Provincial Government and the Conciliator. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in this respect has relied upon AIR 1953 SC 53 and has argued that the Court should not go into minute technicalities. The observations made are as under "In view of the increasing complexity of the modern life and the independence of the various sectors of a planned national economy, it is obviously in the interest of the public that Labour disputes should be peacefully and quickly settled within the framework of the Act rather than by resort to methods of direct action which are only to well calculated to disturb the public peace order and diminish produc--tion in the country and Courts should not be astute to discover formal defects and technical flaws to over-throw such settlements."
6. The objection which was overruled by the reasons quoted above was that the award was void because the reference by the Government was not made in accordance with the requirement of section 10. It is clear that the Govern--ment bad made reference and if there was any mistake or ordinary legal flaw, could not make the award given by the tribunal void. But it is difficult to treat an office order as a settlement. A settlement must be an agreement signed by both the parties but in the present case there is no agreement but an office order. Again it is necessary that copy of the settlement should be given to the Government and the conciliator but here this also was not done, rather no question of sending copy to the Government and the conciliator, arises because there was no agreement at all. So P-2 is not a settlement .The result is that section 25-A for the reasons given above is not applicable. As the application fails on the ground that section 25-A is not applicable, it is unnecessary to discuss the merits of the case.
7. As a result of the observations made above, the petition is dismissed. Present representative of the representative No..1 only.