The respondent No. 2 submitted a charter of demands consisting of six demands to the petitioner.
Ultimately, as no satisfactory action was taken by the petitioner upon the said demands, the respondent gave a strike notice to the employer under section 26(3) of the I.R.O. A notice was also given to the conciliator under section 27 of the I.R.O., but the conciliation failed. In the meanwhile, the petitioner approached the Government of Sind for prohibition of strike under section 33 of the I.R.O. And the dispute was then referred by the Government to the Labour Court. The respondent No. 2 also filed a petition on failure of the conciliation to the Labour Court. The Labour Court, however, did not decide the case on merits, holding that the industrial dispute had not been raised in accordance with law because of addition of one demand by the respondent No. 2 which was as under:-- Demand No. 7. In pursuance of the above demands, if strike takes place, then the company shall pay full wages for the entire period of strike. "
The Labour Court held that according to section 43 of the I.R.O., no dispute would be deemed to exist until it had been raised in the prescribed manner by a Collective Bargaining Agent or an employer. Because of the addition of one demand, it was held that the dispute had not been raised in the prescribed manner.
2. The respondent No.2 went in appeal before the learned Appellate Tribunal which set aside the- order of the learned Labour Court and remanded the case for determination of the industrial dispute afresh.
3. The same ground has been urged by Mr. Sher Afgan, learned Counsel for the petitioners before us upon which the second respondent's petition had been dismissed by the learned Labour Court.
Although, it is true that section 26(3) of the I.R.O. Contemplates that no further addition of any demand must be made in the notice of strike and the respondent No. 2 could not have made any addition to the original charter of demands, but there is no controversy in regard to the fact that the additional demand, reproduced above, has been dropped by respondent No. 2 before the Labour Court. Although, the contention of Mr. Sher Afgan appears to be right that there was a technical flaw in the notice under section 26(3) of the I.R.O. Given by respondent No. 2, but the question is, whether on account of such technical flaw this Court should interfere and exercise its discretionary jurisdiction when the additional demand has already been dropped by the respondent No. 2. Needless to say that interference by us at this stage would frustrate the industrial dispute which is pending before the learned Labour Court. We are, therefore, not inclined to admit this petition for the said technical reasons which, under the circumstances would only amount to an academic exercise.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is dismissed in limine together with the miscellaneous application which has become infructuous in view of this order.