Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Industrial Dispute Case No. 76 of 1969, decided on 30th May 1970.
---S. 34--Rights ganted to a particular class of employees under existing settlement‑ could not be claimed by employees of a different category 'Relief granted In terms of operative part of award
The case of the first party who filed this case under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is that they are a registered and recognised Trade Union representing the workers of the second party employer and that the second party had kept discriminatory leave system for the workers. That previously the said Union brought I. D. Case No. 25/64 in this Court for allowing maximum leave facilities to all workers of the second party at uniform rate. After the award was given on 13‑3‑65 by this Court, the second party did not allow the‑uniform leave facilities to all the a workers, who were appointed by the second party during the period from raising the charter of demands on 14‑3‑63 to the date of publication of the award, dated 13‑3‑65 and as such, they were deprived from uniform leave facilities.
The first party's attempt with the second party to bring uniform leave facilities for all the workers have been ended in failure. Hence, this application has been filed in this Court on the basis of the award given in I. D. Case No. 25/64 for directing the second party to grant uniform leave facilities to all the workers as per award, dated 13‑3‑65.
The second party filed written statement stating inter alia that the application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is misconceived and untenable and that the petitioner's present demand is not guaranteed or secured by any law or award or settlement. It was submitted that the present demand is a matter of collective bargaining and collective agreement. So, they cannot come in Court without complying the procedures of sections 26; 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. It was further submitted petitioner filed I. D. Case No. 19/67 and that earlier this very petitioner that petition was rejected by the Court.
It was stated that the petitioner's statement in I. D. Case No. 25/64 to the effect that a demand was raised for uniform leave facilities for all workers was not correct and the correct position would be evident from the award itself. That award for uniform leave facilities was given only for semi‑skilled technicians, junior operators of 8th and 9th batches and the confirmed daily rated workers. They were allowed earned leave and .20 days casual leave every year. It is submitted that these facilities were given to these categories of workers and they are being enjoyed by them.
One Mr. Kamaluddin Ahmed, who was a worker as junior operator of the 9th batch, was also covered by the award. The Union also recognised and admitted this fact by their letter, dated 15‑7‑65.
It is submitted that all other workers, who were not mentioned .in the award, dated 13‑3‑65 are not entitled to the benefit of the award in view of the specific mention in the award. In view of all these, it was submitted that this application should be dismissed with cost.
Point for decision is‑ ‑
Whether the Award given in I. D. Case No. 25/64 as published in the Dacca Gazette, Extra ordinary on 13‑3‑65 was implemented by the second party.
We have heard the parties on several dates. But in spite of our directions the first party did not furnish all dates in this connection. But they kept on recapitulating what they have stated in the earlier petition They relied on the award as Published in the Dacca Gazette, Extraordinary on 13‑3‑65 and said that that is applicable on all the workers.
The second party in their written statement has clarified their stand.
It appears from perusal of the record and award that it relates to the semi‑skilled technicians, junior operators of 8th and 9th batches and confirmed daily‑rated workers.
I would like to put the operative part of the award verbatim for the purpose of this case‑
"In the result I award one month's earned leave and 20 days' casual leave, both with pay to all semi‑skilled Technicians, Junior Operators of the 8th and ‑9th batches and confirmed daily‑rated workers and deprived them of the existing privilege of medical leave."
The Court gave this award as civil Court. This means than only the reliefs which were sought for by the first party could be adjudicated upon and nothing could be given beyond the relief sought.
From the story of the case as we find in I. D. Case No. 25/64 the first party made a prayer to the Court for adjudication and determination of the following points with regard to the leave facilities: ‑
(a) Uniform leave Facilities‑One day's earned leave for every 10 days' work, 20 days' casual leave in a year and 10 days' festival leave for all semi‑skilled Technicians, Junior Operators of the 8th and 9th batches and confirmed daily‑rated workers."
So, it appears that the demand was made by the first party even in that case only for these 3 categories of workers, i.e., semi‑skilled technicians, junior operators of. 8th and 9th batches and confirmed daily‑rated workers.
The first party has not given to us, whether besides these 3 (three) categories of workers there are other categories. Even if, there are other categories, we find that the award did not mention any other categories, except these 3 categories:- There was also no demand for the first patty for uniform leave facilities for any other categories, as it would appear from the prayer portion of the said award, as such, the present application in the present case that uniform leave facilities weret wanted for all workers cannot, but be termed as deliberate lie. There is no ambiguity involved in the interpretation and either, of the prayer portion of the said award, or order portion of the same.
We can only say that all semi‑skilled technicians, and confirmed daily‑rated Workers in the employment of the second party from the inception of the Natural Gas Fertilizer Factory at Fenchuganj till to day and those who will be appointed subsequently will be covered by the award given in I: D. Case No. 25/64. Further, all Junior Operators of the 8th and 9th batches working in the said factory will also be covered by the said award. There should be no ambiguity; or misconstruction of the award.
In the present case our decision therefore; is, that all semi skilled technicians and confirmed daily‑rated workers of the Natural Gas Fertilizer Factory at Fenchuganj now in employment and those of such categories who will enter into employment, A will continue to get the facilities as per award given in 1. D. Case No. 25/64 and further all Junior Operators of the 8th and 9th batches of the said factory will also continuo to enjoy the same leave facilities as given in the said award.
With these we dispose, of this application without any order as to cost.
Both the learned members on consultation agreed with my decision given above.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer