Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. HYD‑679 of 1981, decided on 26th October, 1982.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑

‑‑ Ss. 32(1‑A) & 34‑Industrial dispute ‑Demands relating to enforce ment, of rights of workers conferred by law‑Cannot be subject‑matter of industrial dispute‑Can be claimed under S. 34.

Staff & Workers' Union v. Dost Muhammad Cotton Mills 1979 P L C 107 rel.

Gul Muhammad, General Secretary for the Union.

Qddir Hussain Sayeed for the Company.

Date of hearing : 19th October, 1982.

DECISION

This appeal is directed against the decision of the learned Sixth Labour Court, given on 2nd November, 1981, dismissing the application made by the appellant union for adjudication by the Labour Court on its Charter of Demands.

2. The appellant Union, which is the C. B. A. in the Hyderabad estab lishment of the respondent company, on 13th December, 1980 placed a charter of Demands before the management of the respondent company. In all 24 demands were raised. The demands may be broadly divided into two categories. In the first class may be placed those demands which are for the enforcement of rights of workers conferred on them by statute and in second category would come those demands where fresh benefits, entitlements or rights are claimed. The respondent company resisted the application and the demands of the appellant union on three grounds. The first objection raised by the respondent company to the maintainability of the application made by the appellant union under section 32 (1‑A), I. R. O., was that it questioned the claim of the appellant union to be the C. B. A. in the respondent company establishment at Hyderabad. The second ground on which the application was resisted was that no reference to arbitration had been made. The last ground urged by the respondent company was that besides the Hyderabad establishment, the company had establishments at Karachi, Lahore, Multan, Rawalpindi and Peshawar and the workmen in those establishments were not getting more emoluments or better benefits than the workmen employed in its Hyderabad establishment. It was further urged on behalf of the respondent company that there was no jurisdiction for allowing any of the demands raised by the appellant union. The learned Labour Court has dismissed the appellant's application and rejected its demands, holding that demands Nos. 9, 14, 15, 18 and 19 are covered by statutory provisions and can be claimed under section 34. I. R. O., and cannot be raised through an application under section 32 (1‑A), I. R. O. : that demands Nos. 4, 10, 13 and 21, if accepted, would interfere with the prerogative of the management and that as far as the remaining demands are concerned, there is no evidence to justify the grant of the same.

3. I have heard the General Secretary of the appellant union, who appeared in person, and Mr. Qadir Hussain Sayeed, who appeared for the respondent company.

4. Demands Nos. 4 and 19 and that part of demand No. 14 which relates to the disbursement of the five per cent of the companies profits under the provisions of the Companies Profits (Workers' Participation) Act, 1968.1 are clearly for the enforcement of statutory rights. Clause (a) of subsec tion (12) of section 22, I. R. 0., specifically excludes from the scope of, collective bargaining by the C. B. A. matters which relate to the enforcement of any right guaranteed or secured to the C. B. A. or to any workman by or under any law, other than the I. R. O., or any award or settlement. In the case reported as Staff & Workers' Union v. Dost Muhammad Cotton Mills (1979 P L C 107), my learned predecessor rejected the demands for statutory and customary bonus and the making of detailed entries in the Service Books of the workmen on the ground that they are covered by statutory provisions and can be enforced under section 34, I. R. O. and, no industrial dispute can be raised with regard to these demands. In fact the definition of Industrial dispute as contained in the I. R. O. has been amended so as to exclude disputes and differences in respect of the enforcement of any right guaranteed or secured to workman under law, other than the I. R. O., or any award or settlement.

5. As regards the remaining demands, though presumably an Industrial dispute in respect thereof can be raised, no evidence has been led by the appellant union to justify the award of the benefits claimed. The benefits and demands claimed range from increasing wages and grant of various allowances, such as House Rent Allowance, Meal Allowance, Conveyance Allowance Sub‑Depot Charge Allowance, Washing Allowance and Relief Allowance to consultation with arid approval of the appellant union, to appointments, promotions and transfers in the respondent company and the replacement of an officer of the company, Mr. Afzal Ahmed Siddiqui, by a retired officer, Mr. Hamid Ali Zafar. On behalf of the appellant union, the General Secretary of the union was examined and on behalf of the respondent company its Sales Promotion Officer, Afzal Ahmed Siddiqui, was examined. However, there is not a particle of evidence in their statements justifying or supporting any of the demands raised by the appellant union. As already pointed out, the respondent establishment has similar establishments as it has in Hyderabad to various other towns of Pakistan. No evidence was led to indicate that the workmen in those other establishments enjoyed or had been granted any of the benefits which were being claimed by the appellant union in its Charter of Demands. It is also common knowledge that there are other tea blending companies operating in Pakistan but no evidence was led to indicate what were the benefits which their workmen were enjoying or the wages that they were receiving. A specific querry was put to the General Secretary of the appellant union whether he had any evidence available or which he could lead in support of the union's demands but he categorically stated that he had no such evidence beyond the patent fact that there had been general increase in the cost of living. Apart from the fact that there are a number of demands of the appellant union which have no concern with the rise in the cost of living, the Government, by legislation, has been granting each year to workers drawing wages upto a certain maximum limit, cost of living allowances, keeping in view the rise in cost of living. No doubt the award of these allowances to workmen do not preclude them from raising demands for increase in wages and allowances, but the demands must be based on tangible evidence, including the capacity of the employer to bear the increased burden of the demands.

6. As the appellant union has led no evidence in support of its demands and further it was asserted by the General Secretary of the appellant that they did not have any evidence in support of their demands, I would concur in the view taken by the learned Labour Court, though for somewhat different reasons, that the demands be dismissed.

7. Before parting with this judgment, I may point out that the appellant union has produced two certificates of C. B. A. granted to it by the Registrar, Trade Unions; one certificate is of October, 1980, shortly before the Charter of Demands was served on the respondent company and the other is of 14th November, 1981. at about the time when the impugned order of the learned Labour Court was passed. Thus at both the relevant times, the appellant union was a C. B. A. in the respondent company's establish ment at Hyderabad,

Find a Lawyer Near You

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