' Jalil Brothers Limited Employees' Union hereinafter referred to as the petitioner-Union filed the under-consideration application against the Mange-. Ment of Messrs Jalil Brothers Limited, under section 32 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 seeking adjudication in respect of 11 demands listed in the Demand Notice dated 20th May 1975 enclosed with the application.
2. The respondent viz. The Management of Jalil Brothers Limited resisted the petition and pleaded inter alia that petitioner Union could not legally raise the present industrial dispute due to the pendency of settlement dated 17th June 1974. This settlement was binding on the parties for a period of one year and could continue to be binding after the expiry of the aforesaid period until the expiry of two months from the date on which either of the parties informed the other party in writing of its intention no longer to be bound by the settlement. The demands raised by the petitioner-Union were the same which had been initiated and settled on 17th June 1974. The respondent also maintained that the petition was barred by the principle as contained in Order II, rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure inasmuch as the petitioner ought to have included the whole of the demand in one demand notice and could not burden the respondent by raising demands afresh which could be included in the previous demands.
3. The aforementioned preliminary objections raised by the respondent are sought to be disposed of by the instant order.
4. The respondent produced Exh. E-1 photo copy of the demand notice dated 6th May 1974 Exh. R-2 photo copy of the demand notice dated 20th May 1975 and Exh. R-3 photo copy of the settlement dated 17th June 1974.
5. In rebuttal Muhammad Zafar Niazi, President of the petitioner Union has testified. He admitted of having served demand notice Exh. R-and the execution of settlement dated 17th June 1973 Exh. R-3.
He also tendered in evidence copies of the demand notice and strike notice Exhs. P-1 and P/2 respectively giving rise to the present dispute. He stated that during the previous one year the cost of living has abnormally increased. He also disclosed that the Management was not running into loss. Actually in order to hoodwink the Union the Management indirectly diverted the business in the name of Afshan Enterprisers Karachi. He admitted that the Management wrote to the Union a letter informing that the bonus had not been paid to the employees at Karachi and therefore according to the terms of the settlement it was not paid to the employees at Lahore.
5. I have compared the contents of the Demand Notice Exh. E-1 dated 6th May 1974 and those of Exh. R-2 dated 26th May 1975. With exception of one or two demands other demands are almost identical. The new demands contained in the notice dated 20th May 1975 are of insignificant nature and pertain to the fact that goodwill award be paid to employees who have completed 5 years service, the date of increment should be brought at par with the date of start of Company's new year and the office should be closed for 2 days in a week d. e. On Saturday and Sunday.
6. The present dispute has been filed on 21st August 1975. It appears from the contents of Exh. R. 3 photo copy of the settlement dated 17th June 1974 that the settlement is still in force and it covers the demands which were raised through the notice dated 6th May 1974. In M. M. Isphani Limited v.
Isphani Campany Office Emyloyees' Association, Chittagong and others it was held that agreements already entered into under settlement were binding on employers and employees and a strike called on ground of grievance already settled was illegal. It was further held that addition of false pretext did not affect illegality. In the Crescent Pak Soap and Oil Mills Labour Union v. s Cresent Pak Soap & Oil Mills and 2 others it was held by the High Court of West Pakistan that it was fair that an award made between the parties would remain in force for reasonable minimum period and should not be subjected to change any modification from day to day. If the award has proved not to be satisfactory in all respects in its operation its further enforcement could be prevented by one of the parties to the dispute on proof of a material change in the circumstances, otherwise as a rule for the financial period of one year or for any period prescribed in the award it must endure in the interest of peace and harmony, amity and good relations in the Industrial concern. In Abdul Hamid and others v. Firdous Tanneries Limited it was held that all claims should be included in the strike notice and that omitting or intentional relinquishing portion of demands to make such portion basis for fresh strike notice was abuse of process of law.
7. Reliance on behalf of the petitioner Union has been placed on Rafhan Maize Products Company Limited, Lyallpur v. Employees' Union. In this case the Hon'ble Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab has held that demands regarding financial implications could be raised if conditions and circumstances have materially changed.
8. In the instant case as already stated there is a bare statement of Muhammad Zafar Niazi, President of the petitioner-Union to the effect that during the previous one year the cost of living has abnormally increased: In the cross-examination he disclosed that from his personal experience he could say that there had been abnormal increase in the cost of living during the previous one year.
9. As a matter of fact the solitary statement of the President of the Union is quite insufficient to prove that there has been abnormal increase in the cost of living during the previous year and thereby circumstances have materially changed justifying raising of demands regarding financial implication although the same demands are covered by the previous settlement which is still operative. The increase in the cost of living is effective since 1972 and there has been no abnormal increase during the last one year alone. We would therefore hold that there has been no material1 2 3 4 change in the circumstances justifying raising of demands covered by the previous settlement which is still operative.
10. In the light of what has been said above the preliminary objections raised by the respondent are upheld and the application is accordingly dismissed. PLD 1960 SC 151 1968 PLC 87 1962 PLC 1050 1976 PLC 638