Find a Lawyer

Industrial Dispute Case No. 11 of 1970, decided on 10th August 1970.

‑Scope---Working schedule‑Enforcement of‑Management legally entitled to enforce working schedule provided such schedule does not offend provisions of law ‑Dispute concerning enforcement of such working schedule‑Adjudicatable by Labour Court under S. 34‑Management proposing introduction of five‑day a week working schedule‑Such working schedule, though not offending S. 8, East Pakistan Shops and Establishments Act, 1965, not acceptable to Trade Union Management, in circumstances, held, entitled to pray for an order of Labour Court under S. 34‑East Pakistan Shops and Establish ments Act (VII of 1965) S. 8.

.‑This case arises out of an application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Pakistan Shell Oil Co. Limited is the first party in the case and the Pakistan Shell Oil Workers' Union is the second party. The second party, it is alleged, is a registered Trade Union and entered into an agreement with the first party regarding some terms and con ditions of service of the manual workers represented by the second party Union. Thereafter some representatives of the clerical staff of the first party submitted a charter of demands including a demand for introduction of a five‑day a week working schedule. Negotiations were going on between the first party and repre sentatives of the junior staff, meaning the clerks. In 'the mean time the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 came into force. Thereupon the second party, being the collective bargaining agent of the workers of the first party took up the matter on behalf of the junior staff and concluded an agreement with the first party, wherein a five‑day‑week working schedule was agreed upon. In pursuance of the agreement the first party wanted to introduce the working schedule for all the workers under the first party, but the Union refused to accept the working schedule for the manual labourers. There was a discussion between the Management of the first party and the Union over this, but ultimately the proposed five‑day a week working schedule could not be introduced, as it was opposed by the Union on behalf of the manual workers. So, the first party has come before the Court for adjudication upon the differences and for an order that the 'first party is entitled to introduce the five‑day a week working schedule for all the workers under them.

The second party Union has entered appearance. It maintains that the application under section 34 is not maintainable. It further contends that the agreement entered into is binding on the junior staff and not upon the manual labourers. It is also said that the junior staff are not the members of the Union.

The points that arise for our consideration are as follows: ‑

(1) Is the application maintainable under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 ,

(2) Is the first party entitled to an order from the Court to introduce a five‑day a week working schedule for all the workers under them

For convenience of discussion both the points are taken up together for decision.

It is an admitted fact that previously the Union entered into an agreement with the first party. That was with respect to a charter of demands dated 31st March 1969. The memorandum of agreement is before us. In that agreement there is nothing about working hours. Subsequently, op the charter of demands raised by the junior staff there was another agreement in which a five‑day a week working schedule has been agreed upon between the parties. In view of the fact that the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 came into force in the meantime this agreement had to be signed by the representatives of the establishment and the representatives of the Union, the second party. Union which is a registered Trade Union being the sole collective bargaining agent of the workers of the first party. A question may arise, whether the agreement between the junior staff and the Manage ment also binds the manual workers so far as the working schedule is concerned. Be it noted that in the earlier agreement entered between the first party and the Union representing manual workers has got nothing about the working schedule. The fact remains that it is inconvenient to have two working schedules for different classes of workers. At present a six‑day a week working schedule is continuing. Bill because of the agreement between the junior staff and the establishment a five‑day a week working schedule has got to be introduced to give sanctity to the agree ment. It is submitted by the first party that all other matters entered in the agreement have been given effect to excepting the matter relating to the working schedule. Under the provisions of law as adumbrated in section 8 of the East Pakistan Shops and Establishments Act, 1965 no worker shall be liable to work in any establishment in excess of 9 hours a day and 48 hours a week. 'The five‑day working schedule sought to be introduced by the first party does not offend against this provision of law in so far as the weekly working hours has been fixed at 39 hours for the workers. The first party is under the law entitled to enforce working schedule for its workers in any manner it likes; provided it does not offend against the provisions of law. It is a right to the employer guaranteed by law and the employer is within it; means to endorse the right. The Union by refusing to accept the working hours for the manual labourers has raised an industrial dispute. The Union it may be mentioned is the collective bargaining agent of the workers of the first party. There is nothing in the written objection what are the disadvantages of the manual workers for acceptance of the five‑day a week working schedule for them. It has been submitted by the first party that not to speak of any disadvantage, the working schedule sought to be introduced by the first party for all the workers will also be advantageous to the manual labourers.

On a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances I am inclined to say that an industrial dispute has arisen and that the first party is competent to come before the Court for adjudication of the dispute and to have an order from the Court that they have a right under the law to introduce working schedule in any, manner they like provided it does not offend against the law as enunciated in section 8 of the East Pakistan Shops and Establish ments Act, 1965.

In coming to these findings I have considered the views of the learned Members.

For the reasons stated above, I accordingly find that the application is maintainable and that the first party establishment is entitled to introduce a five‑day a week working schedule for all the workers, provided it does not offend in any way against the provisions of section 8 of the East Pakistan. Shops and Establishments Act, 1965.

The award is given accordingly and it will remain in force for a period of two years from to‑day and shall be given effect to within one month from this date.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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