Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 19 of 1984, decided on 2nd June, 1985.

‑‑‑Ss. 25-A & 34‑‑Industrial dispute raised by C . B . A. is on behalf of all workmen‑‑Procedure of individual grievance under S.25‑A not applicable to such dispute‑‑House rent deductions made by management in excess and violation of operative settlement‑‑C. B.A. moving application to Labour Court under S.34‑‑Objection that application by C . B . A. was not maintainable and it could be moved by individual workers after service of grievance notice‑‑Objection repelled‑‑Right guaranteed under settlement was common cause of all workers and C.B.A. was not espousing cause of individual workman but a right secured to it through settlement.

Muhammad Sharif and Muhammad Riaz Ahmed for Appellant.

K.N. Kohli and Sheikh Ghulam Ahmed for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 20th April, 1985.

This appeal is directed against the decision given in application No.72 of 1983 by the Presiding Officer 1st Labour Court Baluchistan Quetta on 10‑11‑1984 whereby the appellant is directed to maintain the amenity as existed on 31‑12‑1981 enjoyed by the workers employed with the Bolan Textile Mills Ltd., Quetta and the orders contained in the circular orders, dated 28‑2‑1982 and 20‑8‑1983 issued by the appellant demanding more than 25% of the house rent allowance from the workers have been set aside.

The respondent, the Collective Bargaining Agent for Bolan Textile Mills workers (hereinafter referred to as the C . B. A.) made an application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "IRO") before the Presiding Officer 1st Labour Court Quetta and maintained therein that the Bolan Textile Mills Ltd. had provided fringe benefits to the workers of the Mill including the benefit of house rent and provided accommodation to the workers and the rent of quarter was to be recovered at the rate of 25% of the house rent allowance and this was contained in the Settlement Agreement executed/ signed on 23‑5‑1982 by the management and the office‑bearers of the workers Union. This agreement was valid for the period from 1‑1‑1982 to 31‑12‑1983. The Mill Management had once issued an order whereby the accommodation charges were increased from 25% to 50% contrary to the terms of the settlement but later it was corrected and recoveries made from the employees were refunded. However on 20‑2‑1982 the management issued a circular that from 1‑1‑1982 house rent at 50% would be deducted and again on 20‑8‑1983 conveyed a decision that the deduction at 100% was to be made with effect from 1‑7‑1983. These two circular orders were in violation of the settlement and therefore, it was prayed that these orders be set aside.

The reply statement was filed by the appellant and a preliminary objection was taken that the application filed is barred by time as such liable to be dismissed. (How it was time barred has not been disclosed). The action of the management was however justified.

Before the Presiding Officer the respondent herein produced the documents which were admitted by Akhtar Ali, the representative of the appellant in his statement. The agreement signed on 23‑5‑1982 mentions that the agreement would be operative for a period of two years from 1‑1‑1982 to 31‑12‑1983. It also provided that the conditions of service, privilages and amenities enjoyed by the members on 31‑12‑1981 shall not be changed/modified/withdrawn to the detriment of the employees. The representative of the appellant conceded in his statement recorded before the Labour Court that the demands /enhancement were made without consulting the workers or their representative (C . B . A. ) and was without their consent. The Labour Court, therefore, set aside the orders dated 28‑2‑1982 and 20‑8‑1983 whereby the amenity was altered to the disadvantage of the workers and directed the management of the B.T.M. to maintain the amenity as existed on 31‑12‑1981 i.e. deduction at the rate of 25% of the house rent allowance. Against this decision of the Presiding Officer dated 10‑11‑1984 this appeal has been riled and it has been urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that (a) the application under section 34 of I.R.O. filed by the Collective Bargaining Agent was not competent as it could be filed by the workers only and (b) that no grievance notice was served on the appellant.

These objections now being raised in appeal were not pleaded in the reply statement filed before the Labour Court. In fact the stand taken by the appellant before the Labour Court was that since the decision was taken by the Board of Directors which was conveyed by the management hence the application was not maintainable.

The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant are based on a misconception. The dispute was raised by C . B . A . and, therefore, it was a dispute between the workmen on the one hand and the employer on the other hand. Whenever the C.B.A. raises a dispute it is on behalf of all workmen. The C . B . A . by this application filed under section 34, I.R.O. was not espousing the cause of individual workman but had moved the Labour Court to enforce the right guaranteed under the agreement entered into by the parties on 23‑5‑1982 secured by it under the settlement. The right claimed was not to any individual worker alone but it was a common cause to safeguard their interest so that no one is charged in excess of 25% of house rent allowance which had been secured for all workers through the C . B. A . from the employer on matters connected with the conditions of service and thus the privileges granted under the agreement had given a right to the C . B . A . for its members. The provision of section 34 of I.R.O. is clear and is reproduced:‑

Section 34‑‑ Application to Labour Court. Any Collective Bargaining Agent or any employer may apply to the Labour Court for the enforcement of any right guranteed or secured to it or him by or under any law or any award or settlement."

The legislature has provided a procedure for disposal of the grievance of an individual workman under section 25‑A, I.R.O. but section 34, I.R.O. does not prescribe any procedure in respect thereof. The difference between sections 25‑A and 34 of the I.R.O. is that under section 25‑A the remedy for seeking redress is subject to condition or limitation provided therein but the provision contained in section 34 does not prescribe any procedure in respect thereof.

In the instant case 'the entitlement of the workers i.e. 25% of the house rent is protected under the settlement dated 23‑5‑1982 which is valid upto 31-12‑1983. This agreement having been admitted the C . B. A. is entitled to take the common cause of the workmen to the Labour Court under section 34, I.R.O. and the excessive demand was correctly challenged .on account of the subsistence of a settlement arrived at between the C.B.A. arid the management.

For the above reasons I find no force in the appeal which is dismissed. The parties shall however bear their own costs.

A.E.

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.