Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 Section 25A & 34 Union The Union has the right to represent all workers and not to a particular class of laborers who instructs the management bus conductors that each ticket fare is already issued. It is urged to change the conditions of service of the workers as it increases academic work, arrangements can check for mismanagement and mismanagement without changing the conditions of service and following the instructions of the scholars. Disagreements over tasks are applicable only to conductors and not to all workers. Therefore, the Union cannot take up the matter, under which, under Section 25A, it would be beneficial to state the name of the bus conductor in the application and to apply to the bus conductor in his name.
1983 P L C 276
[Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab
]
Before Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal
G. T. S. ALFATEH LABOUR UNION
Versus PUNJAB ROAD
TRANSPORT BOARD Appeal No. FD‑521 of 1982, decided on 3rd October, 1982.
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ ‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 34‑‑Right of union‑Union to represent all workers and not a particular class of workers‑Management directing Bus Conduc tors to give on every ticket total of fare of tickets already issued --Union making application under S. 34 challenging such direction on plea that it amounted to changing service conditions of workers in asmuch as it increased clerical work‑Steps, held, could be taken by management to check embezzlement and misappropriation without materially changing service conditions and by carrying out disputed instructions clerical work not agreed to have been increased‑instruc tions applicable to Bus Conductors only and not to all workers hence union could not raise matter‑Right course, held, would be to make application on behalf of and for benefit of Bus Conductors giving their names in petition under S. 25‑A.
Nazir Ahmad Naz for Appellant.
Date of hearing : 25th September, 1982.
JUDGMENT In this appeal the decision dated 17‑8‑1982 passed by the learned Pre siding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant‑Union brought under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was dismissed on the grounds that it was not competent and that an application under section 34 of Industrial Relations. Ordinance, 1969 should have been made.
2. On 24‑11‑1981 the P.R.T.B. issued‑a direction that on every next ticket total of fare. of the tickets already issued should be given This direction was challenged by the Union in the grievance petition. The representative of the appellant has argued that it amounts to changing service conditions of the workers and increases clerical works. Such ins tructions did not in any way materially change the service conditions, therefore, taking of permission under section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is not necessary. In order to check embezzlement and misappropriation steps may be taken without materially changing the service conditions. I cannot agree with the representative that by carrying out the direction of the P R T B clerical work is increased. After preparing a ticket, the total fare given in the previous ticket is to be entered in the new ticket. This does not take much of time. Suppose tickets of Rs. 15 have already been issued, the total of Rs. 15 can be read from the last ticket and entered in the ticket under preparation.
3. The learned lower Court is right in saying that no right of the union was affected by the direction issued by the PRTB. The conductors and not the Union have to put the total of the previous tickets on the new ticket, therefore, if at all there was any grievance, the workers affected by the order could make an application under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The other thing is that the union is always for all the workers and not for a particular class of workers. By the new instructions only the conductors were affected and not all the workers of the P.R.T.B. However, I cannot agree with the observations made by the learned lower Court that the union could make application under section 34 of the Indus trial Relations Ordinance, 1969. No right of the union having been in‑fringed, the union cannot bring any application under section 34. The right course was to make application on behalf of and for the benefit of the conductors giving their names in the petition.
As a result of the observations made above, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss it in limine
Appeal dismissed.
