Find a Lawyer

Industrial Dispute Case No. 35 of 1970, decided on 2nd July 1970.

Ss. 2(xiii) & 34-Whether or not a particular organisation is a collective bargain ing agent-Not an industrial dispute-Labour Court, under S. 34, cannot grant relief in shape of declaration that a particular organi sation was not a Collective Bargaining Agent.

An application under section 34; Industrial Relations Ordi nance, 1969 was filed seeking a declaration that a particular Workers' Union was not the Collective Bargaining Agent.

Held: Application of section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 comes in when there is an existence of industrial dispute and that dispute should relate to a matter arising out of any right guaranteed or secured by law or an award or settlement.

The dispute must be connected with employment or non -employment or the terms of employment or the conditions of work.

Whether a particular organization is a Collective Bargaining' Agent or not that has got no connection with an industrial dispute as defined in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. In other words Labour Court' shall adjudicate under section 34 a right of the parties connected with the employment or non e-employment or the terms of employment or the conditions of work of any person.

The relief sought for in the shape of negative declaration regarding the status of an organization does not come within the purview of adjudication under section 34 of the Industrial Rela tions Ordinance, as it is not a matter for adjudication under that section.

The first party in this case is Messrs A. K. Khan & Company Limited. The second party is the East Pakistan Water Transport Workers' Union. The first party after detailing certain matters prays for a declaration under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1.969 that the second party Union is not the Collective Bargaining Agent and as such cannot act on behalf of the workers of the first party, or that the first party is legally entitled not to negotiate with the second party Union. That is 'the relief in the shape of declaration sought for under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance in this application. The second party, however, raised a preliminary legal point for decision, whether the Court can give such declaration, under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.

Section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance reads as follows:

Any party to an industrial dispute relating to a matter arising out of any right, guaranteed or secured to an employer or workman by or 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."

Clearly application of section 34 comes in when there is existence of industrial dispute and that dispute should relate to a matter arising out of any right guaranteed or secured by law or an award or settlement. What is an industrial dispute

"Section 2 (xiii) industrial dispute' means any dispute or difference between employers and employers or between employers and workmen or between workmen and workmen which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms .of employment or the conditions of work of any person."

The dispute must be connected with employment or non e-employment or the terms of employment or the conditions of work. Whether a particular organization is a Collective 8 Bargaining Agent or not that has got no, connection with an industrial dispute as defined in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. In other words Labour Court shall adjudicate under section 34 a right of the parties connected with the employment or l non-employment or the terms of employment or the conditions of work of any person.

In my considered opinion, the relief sought for in the shape of negative declaration regarding the status of an organization does not come within the purview of adjudication under section 34 C of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, as it is not a matter for adjudication under that section. That being my view, the relief sought for under section 34 cannot come under that section. Of course, by some interlocutory order the strike said to have been resorted, to has been prohibited. Whether that has been done properly or not we are not going to enter into that at this stage. At this stage what remains for us to be considered, whether the declaration sought for in this application is available under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. Myself -and the two learned Members are of the view that the declaration is not maintainable under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for the reasons that have been ascribed hereinbefore Hence,

That the application is rejected on contest as not maintain able.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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