Find a Lawyer

Case No. 4 (9) of 1984, decided on 11th June, 1984.

----Ss. 15 & 53 read with National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973, Reg. 32-Unfair labour practice-Complaint for-Complaint by General Secretary C. B. A. Union of Irrigation Tube-well Workers that members of Union (operators) forced to perform overtime work, not provided liveries and not paid- house rent allowance as a measure to victimise them on account of participation in Union-N.I.R.C. directing Chief Engineer Irrigation Department to hold inquiry into allegations-Findings of such inquiry that allegations of unfair labour practice devoid of sub stance-Complaint, in circumstances, dismissed in limine.

Mahmood Hussain for Complainant. .

K. M. Pasha for Respondents. -

This is a complaint under section 53 of -the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 read with Regulation 32 of the N. I. R. C. (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973 tiled by Rana Muhammad lqba1, General Secretary, Irrigation Tube-well Workers Union, Main Bazar, Sheikhupura against Muhammad Siddique Chaudhry, Superintending Engineer SCARP-I, 4-Lyton Road, Lahore and two others. The complainant states that his union is registered by the Registrar of Trade Unions, Lahore Region vide No. 278/72, and recognized as C. B. A. The Tube-well Operators who are the members of his union are being victimized and harassed on account of - their participation as members of the complainant's union, in that

(a) They are being forced to perform their duties 24 hours a day which is against the law and are not allowed wages for duty performed overtime or holidays.

(b) They are not provided liveries for the last two years.

(c) They are not paid house rent allowance which was to be paid from 1st July, 1982 to 31st December, 1982.

(d) They are not paid their legal wages which had become due as a result of revised pay scale allowed by the Government of the Punjab w. e. f. 1st July, 1983.

2. I have had the Chief Engineer Irrigation, Faisalabad to conduct inquiry in the matter. He has stated that they are required to per form their duties in accordance with the nature of their duty or work. In fact, the duty of this job, merely consists of switching on and off of the tube-wells according to necessity at long intervals and, is very light work. The acceptance of this job by the complainant and others as such meant that they have accepted these terms and conditions of their service. Since these terms and conditions of service apply to all tube-well operators and not the members of the Union alone, no prima facie case of unfair labour practice is made out.

3. As for the liveries, it is stated in the inquiry report that no liveries are authorised to the tube-well operators as no funds are earmarked in the yardstick approved by the Finance Department, Government of Punjab. Therefore, this allegation of the complainant that the issuance of the liveries is being delayed by respondents with a view to pressurising him and other members of his union to discontinue their labour union activities, etc. is without substance.

4. As for the house rent allowance it is stated to be permissible to those civil servants who are not allowed official accommodation. In fact, all those tube-well operators who have not been provided with official accommodation are being allowed house rent allowance. The dispute is that the complainant terms the room provided by the Department as duty room and requires it to be V declared by Government so that house rent allowance could be given. The matter of granting house rent allowance to this case lies with the Secretary Irrigation, and not with the respondents. On this ground no case of unfair labour practice is made out.

5. As for the payment of legal wages it has not been shown that only those workmen who were the members of the union have not been paid their legal wages by any of the three respondents due to their trade union activities. Also the name of not even a single person who has not been paid legal wages has been given, consequently, no case of unfair labour practice is made.

6. The upshot of the above discussion is that the complaint has substance and is dismissed in limine.

A. E.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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