1. MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-This is a reference under section 40 of the East Pakistan Labour Disputes Act, 1965 for adjudication of the industrial dispute between Olympia Textile Mills and other textile mills of East Pakistan, and the correspond--ing Trade Unions of textile mills' workers.
2. In two other separate applications I have made 9ertain observations. Now the second party employers have approached this Court for getting an order regarding the maintainability of the reference. While the employers' side was heard, the employees' side was found absent. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the second party who submitted that the reference commenced on 22-10-1969 in this Court, before the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 came into existence and as such, a reference like this is saved under section 67(2)(6) of the Industrial Relation` Ordinance as having commenced and merged with any reference made under section 32 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. He argued that the' circumstances leading to this reference need not be enquired into, but the reference as it is, should be considered .to be a reference which is proceeding in the Court. Hut the fact remains that a reference made under section 40 of the repealed' East Pakistan Labour Disputes Act, 1965 is not the same reference made under section 32 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, In the present case the reference before us is a reference under section 40 of the repealed Act and the reference pending in the file can only be said to have been saved under section 67 (2)(b) to the extent of Its consistency with section 32 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance and as such, we compare section 40 of the repealed Act with section 32 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. It must be stated here that there is a lot of difference between the repealed Act and the Industrial Relations Ordinance in basic concept and as such, a reference under section' 40 of the old Act cannot be said to be a reference under section 32 of the present Ordinance. Section 40 of the repealed Act is as follows:- "40.-(1) Where an apprehension of a labour unrest exists on any matter, or where any conciliation proceeding in respect of a labour dispute is pending before a Conciliation Officer, or where a Labour` dispute has otherwise not been referred to the Court in accordance with the provisions of section 6, such matter or dispute or any other matter which the Provincial Government may consider necessary for reference to the Court, may, by notification in the official Gazette, be referred to the Court by the Provincial Government for inquiry, adjudication or decision.
(2) Where any difficulty or doubt arises as to the interpretation of any award or decision pr order passed by the Court, the matter may be referred to the Court by the Provincial Government or any party concerned, either, in the whole or in part, for interpretation of the same.
(3) The Court to which a matter is referred under sub--section (2) shall, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, decide the matter, and its decision shall be final and binding on the parties: Provided that in cases refereed to the Court under sub--section (2) by any party other than the Provincial government, the Court may reject the application for such interpretation summarily on the ground of its being frivolous or vexatious."
3. As compared to that, section 32 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is this "32-A. Industrial disputes involving more than one establishments.-Where an industrial dispute relates to or involves an industrial organisation that has more than one establishments, then-
(a) Where the subject-matter of the dispute extends to more than one establishments situated in a Province while the headquarters office of the industrial organisation is in another Province, the negotiation provided by section 26 shall be conducted at a place in that Province-to be nominated by the Provincial Government and the Conciliator having jurisdiction at such place under section 27 shall have jurisdiction to act further in the matter in respect of all such establishments. In any consequential proceedings under section 31, the arbitrator may be appointed, in respect of` the dispute as affecting all the establishments, from the panel maintained by the Provincial Government or may be any other person; Where the subject-matter of the dispute extends to places in more than one Province, the negotiations provided by section 26 shall be conducted at the place where the head--quarters office of the industrial organisation having establish--ments in such Provinces is situated, and the Conciliator having Jurisdiction at such place, under section 27 shall have jurisdic--tion to act further in the matter.In case no settlement is reached, the parties shall have power to appoint an arbitrator under section 31, who may be a person whose name is borne on the panel maintained by one of the Provincial Governments involved, or any other person.
4. "32-B. Industrial disputes involving Pakistani workman employed abroad by organisation established in Pakistan: Where an industrial dispute arises between an industrial of organisation established in Pakistan and its workman employed in any establishment operating at a place outside Pakistan, then in respect of such of the workmen involved who are nationals of Pakistan, the industrial dispute shall be deemed to have arisen at the place in Pakistan where the headquarters office of such industrial organisation is situated, and the proceedings for negotiations, conciliation arbitration' and refer-- ence to the Labour Court, shall apply accordingly.'
5. Now it would appear that previously a reference could be made by the Government even before any strike had been com--menced or continued for 30 days. Now, the Government cannot make any reference before there is w strike and/the strike continued for 30 days and after its prohibition.
6. Further, it appears that under section 40 of the old Act the decision of the Court was final and binding on the parties. It may be mentioned here that the repealed Act did not make any provision for Appellate Tribunal, but the Industrial Relations Ordinance has made provision for Appellate Tribunal. Hence it cannot be said that a reference made under section 40 of the repealed Act is the same as sec--tion 32 of the present Ordinance. So I find that the provisions of section 40 of the old Act in so far as it relates to this reference is not consistent with the provisions of section 32 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance in so far as a reference could have been made in this connection.
7. Hence in the eye of Law no reference exists and the old reference made by the Government previously abated automatically.
8. It is, therefore, ordered that the reference be declared void of The members have been consulted and they have given opinion that the reference is untenable and void.