' This is a revision application under section 38(3-a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, filed by Indus. Motor Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Company) against Indus Peoples Workers Union, respondent No, 2 (hereinafter referred to as the Union) and the Assistant Director Labour, respondent No, 3, against an order dated 29-9-1998, passed by the learned Labour Court No,IV on application bearing No,1 of 1998 under section 34 of I.R.O., 1969 wherein it was prayed that: -- "this humble Court may be pleased to enforce the right of the applicant guaranteed under sections 34 and 46 of the I.R.O., 1969 by passing an order under section 34 of the I.R.O. 1969 that the Strike Notice, dated 17-8-1998 and the conciliation proceedings initiated by the respondent No,2 are illegal and no industrial dispute exists. Any other further relief that this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. The learned Labour Court, after notice to the parties and hearing them at great length, passed the following order on 29-9-1998, operative part whereof reads as under:--- "In order to ascertain the mala fide and legality as alleged by the applicants, the prayer made in the main petition requires to be thrashed out, therefore, the same may be kept pending and the parties should lead their evidence.
The main petition was already at the stage of the evidence of the applicants and let them file the same in the shape of affidavit-in -evidence."
3. After passing the aforesaid order the Union, by letter dated 7-9-1998, addressed to the Company, withdrew its strike notice and by another letter dated 8-9-1998, submitted a fresh charter of demands to the company an in quick succession, served a fresh strike notice dated 21-9-1998, On receipt of the aforesaid letters the company filed a miscellaneous application dated 12-9-1998 before the learned Labour Court praying for suspension of the charter of demand and the contemplated strike. The Union also filed an application dated 18-9-1998 for dismissal of the main application, moved earlier by the company. The learned Labour Court, after hearing the parties, rejected both the applications by its order dated 29-9-1998. It is against this order, that the company has moved this revision application.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties on the points involved in the case. During the course of arguments, Mr. Jeelani, learned counsel for the respondent, makes a statement at the bar, which he also put it into writing and is signed by him. The said statement is reproduced as under:--- "Statement at the bar.
' On behalf of the respondent Union, in the above matter, the following is respectfully submitted:--
(i) The charter of demands covered by the 1st strike notice dated 17-8-1998 is withdrawn.
(ii) The respondent union shall pursue the subsequent charter of demands submitted vide letter dated 8-9-1998.
(iii)If the conciliator is allowed to hold conciliation proceedings, the union shall not indulge into any acts of unfair labour practice strike, including going on strike until the conciliation proceedings are concluded.
' It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order dated 29-9-1998 may please be modified by consent of parties.
' Karachi: Dated 17-3-1999. (Sd.)
Advocate for the respondent.
' I have no objection.
(Sd.)
Advocate for Informant."
' It has also been prayed in the statement that the interim order dated 29-9-1998 be modified by consent of the parties.
5. The parties' counsel have also filed a further statement, which is signed by both counsel jointly.
The said statement is reproduced as under:-- "Further statement at the Bar ' It is further submitted that in case conciliation proceedings, God forbid, fail, the parties shall peruse their remedies according to law.
' Karachi: (Sd.) 'Dated:17-3-1999. Advocate for respondent Union.
(Sd.)
Advocate for Informant."
6. In view of the statement at the bar made by Mr. Jeelani lateron put into writing by him with endorsement of no objection by Mr. Humayun and the further statement, jointly signed by both of them, the impugned order dated 29-9-1999 stands modified and the revision application is disposed of accordingly <u>Miscellaneous Application No, 61 of 1999 </u>
7. The interim order of stay, passed on 5-10-1998 also stands vacated and the application, having become infructuous, is dismissed accordingly, as the main revision application has already been disposed of, on the joint statement, made by the parties.
' Announced in open Court, this the 17th day of March, 1999.