Find a Lawyer

Labour Appeal No.24 of 2014, decided on 25th October, 2014.

----S. 77---Industrial Relations Act (X of 2012). Ss.2(xviii), 2(xxvi) & 57---Appeal---Complaint regarding embezzlement of funds of the Labour union---Maintainability---Jurisdiction of Labour Court for entertaining the complaint pertaining to Labour union---Scope---Newly elected President of the union filed a complaint against the ex office-bearers of the union regarding embezzlement of union funds--- Ex office-bearers raised objections regarding the maintainability of the complaint in view of promulgation of Industrial Relations Act, 2012---Contention of the newly elected President of the Labour union was that the matter did not fall within the purview of Industrial Relations Act, 2012 and the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint for the reasons that the said union was local in nature not having its branches in more than one province---Validity---Union in question was not registered under Industrial Relations Act, 2012, its membership was confined only to the extent of one district and not in more than one province---Union in question had been registered under the provisions of Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010 and the provisions of Industrial Relations Act, 2012 were not attracted---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances. 2014 SCMR 535 ref. 2014 PLC 145 and 2014 PLC 148 rel. Sarfraz Ahmed for Appellants. Nasir Khan Yousafzai for Respondent No.1. Arif Abbas representative of Respondent No.2. Abdul Sattar Khan for Respondent No.3. Date of hearing: 22nd October, 2014.

The appellant challenged the order of Learned Presiding Officer 1st Labour Court Balochistan dated 19-9-2014 wherein the objection of appellant/ respondent with regard to jurisdiction was rejected and complaint under section 77 of B.I.R.A., 2010 was entertained for trial. 2. For disposal of instant appeal brief facts are that the appellants/ respondents were ex-office-barriers of Quetta Serena Hotel Labour Union whereas respondents petitioner No.1 is the recently elected president of the same union who after holding the office of the union filed a complaint under section 77 of B.I.R.A., 2010 against the appellants/respondents with the following prayers:--- "It is, therefore, prayed that the complaint may kindly be accepted and respondents Nos.1 and 2 may be imposed fine amounting double the embezzled amount in light of inquiry conducted by respondent No.4 with reimbursement in the Serena Hotel Labour Union"s funds with any other relief, in the interest of Justice and equity." After filing of rejoinder an objection has been raised by the appellants/respondents with regard to jurisdiction of Labour court in view of promulgation of I.R.A., 2012 whereof issues B and C were framed, which reads as under:--- "Whether the complaint is not maintainable in view of preliminary legal objections "B" and "C" raised by respondents Nos.1 to 3 in their written statement " 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties held as under:--- "In view of above discussion specially keeping in view the judgment passed by Honorable Labour Appellate Tribunal, the Issue No.1 is decided in negative to the extent of objections" raised in the rejoinder to the complainant, however, the objection "B" requires evidence and other material for its decision" 4. In the light of pleadings and arguments of learned counsel for the parties it appears that the matter relates to the ex-office-bearers of Quetta Serna Hotel Labour Union and the present President of the same union. 5. The learned counsel for appellant contended that in view of I.R.A., 2012 and judgment of Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan 2014 SCMR 535 the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints of an establishment having its branches in more than one province. The learned counsel also referred two orders i.e. Labour Appeal 16/2014 and Labour Appeal 17 of 2014 passed by this Tribunal wherein the appeal was return to the appellants. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 adopted the arguments of learned counsel for appellants and opposed the order impugned. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 on the other side strongly supported the order impugned and stated that the matter is a purely local by nature between the ex-office-bearers and that of president of the same union which does not fall within the preview of IRA, 2012. The representative of Registrar Trade Union while adopted the arguments of learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that in this regard an inquiry was conducted but no objection has been made from any corner with regard to jurisdiction/power of Registrar Trade Union. 6. Before coming on moot question of the present appeal it will be pertinent to explain the two orders of this Tribunal dated 16-6-2014 in Labour Appeals Nos.16 of 2014 and 17 of 2014. In above mentioned orders after admission of both appeals without hearing and discussion of above appeals a request was made by the learned counsel for appellant for return of both appeals which was allowed in the following terms:--- "Called Mr. Saleem Akhtar learned counsel for appellant and Ms. Shahnaz Rana learned counsel for respondents are present. In view of judgment of honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 17-2-2014 the learned counsel for appellant request for return of appeal for presentation before proper forum. The learned counsel for respondent raised no objection. Request is allowed. The memo of appeal along with annexures and application under section 41 of B.I.R.A., 2010 before Learned Presiding Officer 1st Labour Court Balochistan Quetta are hereby directed to be return to appellant/applicant for presentation before proper forum. Subject however to all just exemptions." 7. Meaning thereby as stated hereinabove without any proceedings the request of learned counsel for appellant was allowed. Therefore both the orders are not useful in the matter in hand. 8. The I.R.A., 2012 defines trade union in XVIII as under:--- "Industry-wise trade union means a trade union having its membership in more than one province in a group of establishments owned by one employer." Again in XXVI states as under:--- "Registered trade union means a trade union registered under this Act." 9. In the light of above definition of I.R.A., 2012 union in question is not registered under I.R.A., 2012. Secondly its membership is confined only to the extent of Quetta and not in more than one province. Meaning thereby the union in question has not been registered under the Provisions of I.R.A., 2012 rather the same is registered under the Provisions of B.I.R.A., 2010. Therefore the provisions of I.R.A., 2012 is not attracted. 10. In support of above mentioned discussion a reported judgment of National Industrial Relations Commission 2014 PLC 145 is very supporting and relevant wherein held:--- "Consequent to the 18th Amendment of the Constitution whereby this Commission can only hear cases in respect of industry-wise trade unions and not unions registered with Provincial RTUs and whose membership is restricted only to one province." 11. Further concluded as under:--- "In view of aforementioned circumstances as stated above, the petitioner"s union has not attained the character of industry-wise trade union, therefore, the provisions of I.R.A., 2012 are not applicable and this Commission has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon these petitions. The applications filed under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. merit acceptance, same are therefore, accepted and it is held that instant petitions cannot proceed, hence, dismissed accordingly. There is no order as to costs." 12. In another reported judgment of National Industrial Relations Commission 2014 PLC 148 and as under:--- "Applicant/appellant union which was not registered as a Trade Union, would not fall within the purview of S.13 of Industrial Relations Act, 2012 to sue or be sued as a body by or in its name---Appeal filed by appellant under S.12 of Industrial Relations Act, 2012 against order, whereby the respondent had been directed to be registered as industry wise Trade Union, being incompetent and not maintainable was dismissed in circumstances." 13. Furthermore the explanation of section 57 of I.R.A., 2012 clearly states about industry - wise trade union which reads as under:--- "Explanation--- The expression "industry-wise trade union" and "Federation of such trade unions" refer to a trade union membership of which extends to establishments in more than one province and a federation of trade unions whose membership extends to registered trade unions in more than one province." Now it is clear that union in question in instant appeal is a trade union registered with Provincial Registrar Trade Union Balochistan and its membership only confined to the extent of Quetta. The same has not joined a federation nor its membership extends in more than one province. 14. In view of above definitions and discussion made hereinabove it is held that Quetta Serena Hotel Labour Union is a local union registered with Registrar Trade Union of Balochistan, Quetta. In view of law quoted hereinabove and judgments of National Industrial Relations Commission the provisions of I.R.A., 2012 are not attracted. Therefore appeal is dismissed and order on C.M.A. No. 12 of 2014 is recalled. The order of Learned District and Session Judge in Case No.10 of 2014 dated 19-9-2014 is upheld. However under the circumstances of the matter parties are left to bear their own cost. 5. The copy of order along with original record of trial Court be sent to trial Court. Case after completion be consigned to record. SA/14/Bal.(Lab. Trib.) 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.