Find a Lawyer

Petition No.55 of 1970, decided on 24^thApril 1970.

---S. 34‑Application to Labour Court‑Conditions pre‑requisite ‑Existence of an industrial dispute and reference by collective bargaining agent Notice of strike given by General Secretary Workers' Union neither recognised by Management nor declared as collective bargaining agent by Registrar, Trade Unions‑No industrial dispute in existence ‑ Petition filed by Management under S. 34, praying the calling and continuing of strike to be declared as illegal, in circum stances, held, not maintainable.

Works Manager, E & M Workshop, WAPDA, Lahore Appeal No.LHR‑255 of 1969 fol.

Ch. Altaf Hussain for Appellant.

Hafeez Qureshi for Respondents.

This is a petition by the General Manager, Progressive Papers Limited‑petitioner; against the General Secretary, Progressive Papers Ltd., Workers' Union, the General Secretary, Punjab Union of Journalists (Regd.) and the General Secretary, Pakistan Tames Press Workers' Union‑‑ respondents, under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 praying that the action of the respondents in calling and continuing the strike be declared illegal.

The facts of the case as mentioned by the petitioner are as follows

There are 3 registered Unions of the Workers of Progressive Papers Ltd., namely the Imroze Editorial Staff Union, Pakistan Times Press Workers' Union and Progressive Papers Ltd. Workers' Union. The first two Unions were formed and registered, under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and were recognized by the Management and have as such, in view of the provisions of section 52 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, right to negotiate with the Management until a collective bargaining agent is declared by the Registrar Trade Unions. The Progressive Papers Ltd. Workers' Union has been recently registered on 13‑3‑1970 and has neither been recognized by the Management nor has been declared as collective bargaining agent. After the publication of the Second Wage Board Interim Award the Progressive Papers Ltd. Workers' Union gave a demand notice on 1,4‑3‑1970 to the Management far the payment of the interim relief to the working journalists as mentioned in the Award as well as to the employees other than non‑working journalists employed in the Progressive Papers Ltd. In the award the non‑working journalists were not given any relief. Since the Progressive Papers Ltd. Workers' Union has not been recognized by the Management nor has been declared a collective bargaining agent, the Management refused to negotiate with them regarding the demands made in the notice. This reply was given on 24‑3‑1970. On the same day the Progressive Papers Ltd. Workers' Union gave a strike notice to the Management regarding the same demands. The Management replied in tile same terms. On the same day a communication from the General Secretary, Punjab Union of Journalists which is also a registered body, was received by the Management, forwarding a copy of the strike notice issued by the Pakistan. Federal Union of Journalists to certain employers and owners of Newspapers. The demands mentioned in the notice were the same as in the demand notice sent by the Progressive Papers Ltd. Workers' Union. On 14‑4‑70, the Management of the Progressive Papers Ltd. made an announcement for the implementation of the Second Wage Board Award. On 15‑4‑1970, another announcement was made to the effect that the same interim relief would also be given to the non‑working journalists. On the came day the Progressive Papers‑ Ltd. Workers' Union called a strike and sent a copy of the resolution to the Management, in which it was mentioned that the Executive Council of the Progressive Papers Ltd: Workers' Union and the Pakistan Times Press Workers' Union, appreciated the decision of the Management to implement interim relief awarded by the Second Wage Board in respect of all workers of the Progressive Papers Ltd. including the non‑journalist staff with effect from 7th January 1970. It was further mentioned that the indefinite strike in the Progressive Papers Ltd. would continue in sympathy with the Journalist and non‑journalist community employed in other organization till their demands presented by the Punjab Federal Union of Journalists in its four point charter were conceded. This notice was signed by Mr. Abbas Athar, who is the General Secretary of the Progressive Papers Limited Workers' Union.

Now the question for determination is as to whether the petition filed under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance; 1969 is competent. Section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 reads as follows:

"Application to Labour Court.‑Any party to an industrial dispute relating to a mattes arising out of any rights guaranteed or secured to an employer or workman by d under any law for the time being in force or an award or settlement may apply to the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute,"

This section presupposes the existence of an Industrial Dispute and the application has to be made by a collective bargaining agent, in order that the Labour Court may adjudicate the dispute We are fortified in this view by the judgment of the Labour Appellate Tribunal in case Mr, Abbas Ali Shah v. West Pakistan Water & Power Development Authority, Lahore and 2 others Appeal No. LHR‑255 of 1969. In the present case, however we find that then; was no dispute pending because according to the facts narrated in the petition, the Management of the Progressive Papers Ltd. had made announcement on 14th and 15th April 1970, accepting the demands made by the Progressive Papers Ltd. Workers' Union. Further we find that the final notice, which was signed by Mr. Abbas Athar was not from a collective bargaining agent, because as already mentioned above the Progressive Papers Ltd. Workers' Union has neither been recognized by the Management nor has been declared collective bargaining agent by the Registrar Trade Unions.

The counsel for the petitioner, however, argued that an Industrial Dispute was in existence. Even if it be assumed for the sake of argument that a dispute was in existence, that dispute cannot be termed as an industrial Dispute, because it was not raised by a Collective Bargaining Agent as is laid dowry in section 43 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.

We, accordingly, find no force in this contention and dismiss the petition.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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