Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. JA‑364 of 1978/Pb decided on 31st May, 1983.

‑‑‑S. 40 ‑Settlement ‑‑ Requirement of notice of termination Applicable ‑to both kinds of settlements i. e. the one in which period agreed upon between parties at time of settlement and that in which such period not so agreed upon and period thereof be one year Period mentioned in settlement one year‑Such settlement, held, would remain effective after expiry of its period of one year till expiry of two months from date on which either party informs other in writing of its intention of no longer to be bound by same.

‑‑Ss: 32 (1‑A) & 37‑Dismissal of petition of C. B. A. Union under S. 32(1‑A) by Labour Court‑Appeal before Tribunal‑Locus standi Appellant union ceasing to remain C. B. A. and new C. B. A. not coming forward to pursue appeal‑Union being no longer C.B.A.; in circumstances, held, has no locus standi to continue appeal.

British Airways Staf Union. Karachi v. Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal 1980 P L C 256 rel.

Muhammad Ikram for Appellant.

Mirza Saleem Baig for Respondent.

This appeal arises from the decision, dated 9th March, 1978 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad, where by the petition instituted by the appellant union under section 32 (1‑A) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was dismissed alongwith demand No. 7 for the reason that the substance of an earlier settlement demand No. 7 could not be made. Several demands were made which had been settled between the parties out of Court by means of settlement but regarding demand No. 7 it was agreed that the finding of the Court would be binding. The demand was: ‑

"Since the employer has established a provident fund scheme, the amount of gratuity be paid in cash."

The learned lower Court disallowed the demand on the ground that the earlier settlement, dated 10th January, 1976 copy of which is Exh. R‑1 was still subsisting and no notice of its termination bad been given by any of the parties to its other and in its substance new demand could not be raised which involved financial implications.

2,. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that since the period for which the settlement, copy of which is Exh. R‑1, dated 16th January, 1976 was to remain effective for one year, on the expiry of the said period it came to an end. He says that the provision that notice of termina tion of settlement should be given, does not apply to such settlement in which the period has been fixed by agreement. I do not find any force in the argument. Section 40 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is clear on the point. It provides that settlement should continue to remain, binding on the parties after the expiry of the aforesaid period till the expiry of two months from the date on which either party informs the other party in writing of the intention of no longer to be bound by the settlement. The words 'aforesaid period' are significant. The words cover both kinds of periods the one agreed upon between the parties at the time of settlement's or the period of one year given in section 40. If the intention of the Legislature had been otherwise instead of the words aforesaid period, the words 'one year' would have been written. Admittedly, till the new demands were raised, none of the parties had served upon the other part any notice of termination of the settlement of 1976. So demand No. 7 could not be made.

3. The other thing is that at present the appellant union is not C. B. A. It has ceased to remain as C. B. A. and the new C. B. A. has no come forward to persue the appeal. The union being no longer agent o B the workers has no locus standi to go with the appeal. The same kind of view was taken by the Karachi High Court in 1980 P L C 256.

4. As a result of the observations made above. J do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss it.

A. E. Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.