DECISION Phoenix Security Service Labour Union submitted six demands in respect of their terms and conditions of service through C.B.A. To the employer Phoenix Security Service (Pvt.) Limited. No action was taken by the employer. The C.B.A., therefore, gave strike notice to the employers under section 26(3) of the I.R.O. Notice was also given to the Conciliator under section 27 of the I.R.O. But the conciliation failed. The employer approached the Government of Sind for prohibition of the strike under section 33. The Government referred the dispute to the Labour Court. The C.B.A. Also filed their petition on failure of the conciliation to the Labour Court. The Labour Court without going into the merits of the case or recording evidence, held that the industrial dispute had not been raised in accordance with law because the original complaint contained six demands but consequently one more demand was added and seven demands were submitted for conciliation, therefore, the grievance notice and the demands or disputes raised were not the same. That under the circumstances under section 43 no industrial dispute shall be deemed to exist unless it has been raised in the prescribed manner by a Collective Bargaining Agent or an employer. That since in this dispute one more demand was added, therefore, it was not raised in the prescribed manner and it could not be considered to be a dispute. For the same reasons the reference made by the Government for adjudication of the dispute was also rejected and the proceedings were dismissed.
2. The learned counsel for the union has, therefore, preferred this appeal against the decision of the Labour Court. It has been argued by Mr. Shafiq Qureshi. Advocate that six out of the seven demands remained the same throughout by an addition of one more demand in respect of he consequential relief holding the company responsible does not invalidate the entire Industrial Dispute raised.
3. Mr. Sher Afgan, Advocate for the company has on the other hand argued that addition of consequential demand renders the entire Industrial Dispute to be considered as not being raised in prescribed manner as held by the Labour Court. He has not cited any authority in support of his contention. I am not able to understand how addition of one more demand for consequential relief, if the demands failed can render all the other demands to be illegal. The Labour Court has not given any reasons for rejecting the reference by the Government and the dispute remains unsettled.
4. The orders of the Labour Court is accordingly set aside and the case may be remanded to the successor of the learned Presiding Officer to enquire into the Industrial Dispute afresh and to make a final award as soon as possible as the matter is very old. He may also decide the reference by the Government.
5. Case remanded