Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑53 of 1983, heard on 6th March, 1983.

(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑---

--‑‑ Ss. 2 (xxviii), 22 (12) (b)' & 34‑Espousing cause of workers by Collective Bargaining Agent‑Claims of retrenched workers -Retrenchment not in consequence of any industrial dispute nor leading to any industrial dispute‑Such retrenched workers‑Not falling within definition of "workman" ‑ Collective Bargaining Agent even if considered to be entitled to espouse cause of either all or any of the workers, held, could not maintain application on behalf of such retrenched workers.

Chamber of Commerce and Industries v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 111 P L D 1979 Kar. 189 ; Sind Alkalies Ltd. v. Workers' Union and another P L D 1979 Kar. 473 ; Iqbal Ahmed v. Second Labour Court 1980 P L C 316 and Laddha Silk Mills v. Laddha Silk Workers' Union P L D 1979 Kar. 99 eel.

(b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑---

‑‑‑ Ss. 34 & 37 read with West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. O. 10‑B (4) and S. 7‑Non‑payment of statutory bonus ‑Offence‑Application of Collective Bargaining Agent regarding claim of retrenched workers for payment of statutory bonus, held, not maintainable -Direction issued by Labour Appellate Tribunal that Director Labour Welfare should have enquiry made and if any infringement of S. G. 10‑B found necessary legal action be taken against person respon sible therefore.

Ali Ahmad for Appellant.

Date of hearing : 6th March, 1983.

This appeal is directed against the decision of the learned Ist Labour Court, dismissing the application of the appellant Union, which is the Collective Bargaining Agent in the respondent‑Organization, made under section 34, I. R. O., praying for the payment of bonus equivalent to wages for 55 days to certain retrenched workers and to refund to them Zakat which has been illegally deducted from their provident fund amounts.

2. It appears that in the month of October, 1981, the respondent Organization had retrenched about 30 workmen on the ground that they were surplus to their requirements. It is the case of the appellant Union that while making payment of their dues to these 30 retrenched workmen they were not paid their bonus of wages for 55 days as per terms of the settlement entered into between the Collective Bargaining Agent and the management and that further Zakat was illegally deducted from the provident fund amounts payable to such workmen. The learned Labour Court has held that the application under section 34, I. R. O. by the appellant‑Union is not maintainable as it is not in respect of all the work men in the establishment and that individual grievances do not come with in the purview of section 34.

3. It is contended by Mr. Ali Ahmad, the learned counsel for the appellants, that clause (b) of subsection (12) of section 22, I. R. O. entitles the Collective Bargaining Agent to represent all or any workmen in any proceedings and hence the Collective Bargaining Agent was entitled to file and maintain the application under section 34, 1. R. O., which has been improperly dismissed by the learned Labour‑ Court. It may be pointed out that there is a wide distinction between the right to represent any workmen in any proceedings and the right to file an application under section 34, I. R. O. which can only be filed for the enforcement of a right guaranteed or secured to the Collective Bargaining Agent under law, a settlement or an award. No doubt, it was held in the case of Chamber of Commerce and Industries v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 111(P L D 1979 Kar. 189), that the Collective Bargaining Agent is entitled to represent all or any of the workmen in any proceedings and that this right includes the filing of an application under section 34, I. R, O., for the enforcement of the rights of the workmen, and in support of this view reference was made to the provisions of clause (b) of subsection (12) of section 22, I. R. O. but apart from the fact that in the case of Sind Alkalies Ltd. v. Workers' Union and another (P L h 1979 Kar. 473), a contrary view was taken and it was observed that the rights secured to workers which could be enforced through section 25‑A, I. R. O.

could not be enforced by taking recourse to section 34, and in the case of Iqbal Ahmed v. Second Labour Court (1980 P L C 316), a Division Bench of the Karachi High Court has held that the words ' any rights guaranteed or secured to it" in section 34, I. R. O., denote collective rights of workmen as enforceable through the agency of the Collective Bargaining Agents, the definition of workers and workmen in the I. R. O. excludes workers who have been retrenched or whose services have been terminated unless such retrenchment or such termination is in consequence of an industrial dispute or has led to an industrial dispute. It was held in the case of Laddha Silk Mills v. Laddha Silk Workers' Union (P L D 1979 Kar. 99), that an application under section 34, I. R. O., would lie against dismissal or termination of a workman in connection with or in consequence of an industrial dispute. In the instant case, admittedly, there is no industrial dispute between the parties and the retrenchment of the workers was not in consequence of such dispute. As such, the retrenched workers do not fall within the definition of "workman" as given in the I. R. O. The result, therefore, would be that the Collective Bargaining Agent is not entitled to represent or to espouse their cause under clause (b) of subsection (12) of section 22, I. R. O. As such, even if it be considered that the Collective Bargaining Agent is entitled to espouse the cause of either all or any of the workers, the application under section 34 would not be maintainable as it is in respect of eh‑workers.

4. For the reasons discussed by me above, I would dismiss the appeal in limine. It may, however, be pointed out that non‑payment of bonus in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 10‑C, includ ing clause (4) of the said Standing Order, is an offence punishable under section 7 of the Sind Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The Director, Labour Welfare, should, there fore, have an enquiry made into this matter and if it is found that there has been an infringement of the provisions of Standing Order 10‑C neces sary legal action should be taken against the persons responsible for the infringement.

A. E. Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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