I have gone through the file which seems to have a checkard history. The perusal of the file shows that Mr. Abdul Rashid had filed an application on behalf of Pakistan Bata Employees' Federation alleging therein that the respondents (Management of Bata Shoe Co. Ltd., Lahore) was entering into a settlement with the other Trade Union namely, Bata Mazdoor League, although the said Trade Union was not the CBA fox the workers of Bata Shoe Co. The Full Bench of the Commission comprising of myself Mr. Mamoon A. Kazi, and Mr. K. U. Farooqi vide its Order dated 27-3-75, dismissed the said application for reasons given in detail in the said Order holding that under section 52 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. 1969 the employer could recognize any Trade Union within the establishment as a CBA until the CBA, had beers certified under the provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Reference has also been made to subsection (z) of section 39 of the Ordinance which lays down that a settlement arrived' at by an agreement between the Employer and a Trade Union, otherwise than i.e the course of conciliation proceedings, shall be binding on the parties to the agreement. Anyhow, it is worthwhile to mention that it was observed in the said Order as under:- "Mr. M. A. Rahim further contended that the respondents had entered into the said settlement with Bata Mazdoor League after the status quo was ordered by this Beneh. The contention of the respondent is that although the settlement was arrived at on the same date, on which the status Gain wan ordered by this Bench, which was in good faith as the respondent was not aware of the order passed by this Bench. In any case, this is a matter of evidence and if the petitioner has any intention of proceeding against the respondent under section 22-C of the Ordinance for flouting the orders of this Bench, he may initiate proper proceedings therefor."
2. Consequently, the application purporting to be on behalf of nine Unions on page 21 of this file was received by the Full Bench for initiations of contempt proceedings on the ground that in spite of the orders of status quo by the Full Bench the Management of Bata Shoe Co. And the representatives of Bata Mazdoor League had entered into a settlement and signed it and that this at of Management of Bata Shoe Co. And the Bata Mazdoor League amounted to contempt of the Commission and also was injurious to the benefits of other Unions. Hence it was prayed in the said application that appropriate action be taken against the Management of Bata Shoe Co. And Bata Mazdoor League who had entered into a settlement and also that settle--ment be declared ineffective. The perusal of the file further shows that vide notice on page 20 of this file, all the signatories to the agreement on behalf of the Management as well as on behalf of Bata Mazdoor League and the petitioner were summoned for hearing of the petition under section 22-C of IRO, 1969 on 23-4-1975 and that on 23 4-75 as none of the petitioners turned up, vide our order of the same date, when Mr. Bilal Advocate, was present on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 to 3, 8 and 9, we dismissed the application on the ground that as the allegations contained in the application requires evidence which could only be produces by the petitioners and none being present on the said date, we had no other alternative but to dismiss the appli--cation. That after the dismissal of the application on 23-4-76 the nine petitioners as shown in the petition on page 21 of the file submitted an appli--cation for restoration of the petition and notice of this application was ordered to be sent to the respondents. The perusal of the file shows that the case was fixed for 9-5- 7_ and 23-5-75. The case was adjourned on 9-5-75 because the respondents could not be served and similarly it was adjourned sine die on 23-5-75. Thereafter, vide orders dated 27-3-76; the learned Chairman was pleased to assign this case pertaining to action under section 22-C of Indus--trial Relations Ordinance, 1969 to me. Consequently, notices were issued to the respondents to appear before me today but except the petitioner and Mr M. Bilal Advocate for respondent No.3, no one else has turned up. The notices sent to the respondents have been received back un- served with the remarks on the envelopes that the addres3ees had refused to receive the same.
3. I have carefully gone through the entire file and find that after the detailed order of the Full Beach dated 27-3-75 which is quire elaborate and wherein the Full Bench has in fact agreed with the learned counsel for the respondent that the Full Beach of the Commission had no jurisdiction to restrain the Company from entering into any settlement with any Trade Union in view of section 52 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, wherein the employer can recognize any Trade Union within the establishment as a CBA A until the CBA has been certified under the provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and as such no further application in this respect ought to have been entertained after the said order. Be that as may, in view of the Order of the Full Bench dated 27-3- 75 I decline to proceed further regarding the petition under section 22-C of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 not to speak of its restoration, which application was, as mentioned above, dismissed on 2-4-75 because in view of the order of the Full Bench dated 27-3-75, legal, proceedings under section 22-C of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 are ranted against the Management or the respondents because the orders not war of status quo, as passed by us on 12- 3-75 was and till the in fact not warranted by law certification of CB -N, the Management was legally authorised and empowered to enter into settlement with any Trade Union in the establishment and the settlement complained against will have legal effect and will be bin--ding on the parties thereto,
4. In view of the above observations, the application for restoration of the petition for contempt proceedings, which is not even accompanied by an affidavit, in support of the contentions as contained in the application, regarding the circumstances due to which the applicants could not attend the Court in the on 23-4-75, is dismissed and dropped because there is no neces--sity of proceeding further in this matter.