DECISION ' This is an appeal against the award of the Labour Court dismissing the application made under section 32(1-A) of I. R.
0.
2. The appellant is a Union of the employees of the respondent. An industrial dispute was raised by serving a charter of demands on 24th August, 1974. It was followed by a strike notice dated 10th September, 1974. Conciliation proceedings failed and therefore, an application under section 32 (1- A), I. R.
0. Was made in the Labour Court on 6th November, 1974.
3. The application was resisted and it was pleaded that the application was not maintainable as the Union was no longer 'Collective Bargaining Agent' in view of amendment of section 22 of I. R.
0. Effected on 13th October, 1974, debarring a Union other than a 'C. B. A.' to approach the Labour Court. It was also pleaded that the workers which were said to the employees of the respondent were never in the employment and, therefore, the Union was not properly constituted and so the industrial dispute could not be raised.
4. The learned Presiding Officer, on the assessment of the evidence, found it in favour of the respondent and dismissed the industrial dispute. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal had been filed.
5. It was urged before me that the industrial dispute was raised prior to the amendment of section 22(1) of I. R.
0. Which did not require any certificate from the Registrar and, therefore, the approach to the Labour Court after the amendment did not invalidate the application which was made under section 32(1-A), I. R.
0., specially when an application to the Registrar for the necessary certificate was made and, therefore, the case was covered by section 52 of I. R. O. This plea was also taken before the learned Presiding Officer and it was found that no such application for a certificate was made to the Registrar after the amendment of section 22. I have gone through the evidence and I fully endorse the view expressed by the learned Presiding Officer. Of course, at the time when the industrial dispute was raised, it was not necessary to obtain a certificate from the Registrar but after the amendment certificate was necessary and in order to cover the interim period from the date of application till the certificate was granted, the infirmity was removed by section 52 and the previous Union could continue to proceed with the dispute. But in the present case, as already stated, no application was made and it was falsely claimed that the application was made.
Consequently, section 52 is not attracted and, therefore, the Union was incompetent to approach the Labour Court under section 32(1-A), I. R.
0. This view was also taken by me in another case, viz., Awalin Silk Mills Workers Union v. Messrs Awalin Silk Mills, Karachi, in Appeal No, KA R-91 of 1975, decided on 9th January, 1976 and relied upon by the learned Presiding Officer. In that case I had given detailed reasons and need not to repeat here.
6. Apart from this, it was also found by the learned Presiding Officer that the workers was are said to be in the employment of the respondent were, in fact, never in their employment and, therefore, the raising of industrial dispute on that account was also not sustainable. I fully agree with this conclusion also on the basis of the evidence which was adduced in the Labour Court.
7. In result the appeal is dismissed.