Find a Lawyer

Appeals Nos. LHR‑238 and 269/Pb. of 1984, decided on 30th January, 1985.

‑‑‑Ss. 2(xxiv), 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Settlement, vires of‑‑Cannot be challenged by grievance petition under S. 25‑A‑‑Labour Court's Order dismissing grievance petition challenging settlement allegedly arrived at by offering promotion promises to office‑bearers of C.B.A. union, upheld by Appellate Tribunal.

Asadullah Siddiqui for Appellant No. 1.

Khan A. Hamid for Appellant No. 2.

S.M. Yaqoob for Respondent.

The two appeals captioned above arise from the decisions, dated 1‑4‑1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore dismissing the grievance petitions of the appellants. As the facts and legal points involved in the two appeals are common, both the appeals are being decided together through this single judgment.

2. Brief facts relevant for the decision of the two appeals are that sales commission initially' was at the rate of I per cent of the sales price upto Rs.50,000 and at the rate of ) per cent for the sales above Rs.50, 000. Certain demands were raised by the C.B.A. Union, whereupon settlement, copy of which is Exh. P.2, was arrived at. During negotiations the Management wrote a letter to the C . B . A . Union on 6‑6‑1980 asking for the reduction of the sales commission. Other demands were finally decided in the settlement Exh. P‑2 but the matter with regard to the sales commission was deferred and supplementary settlement was executed between the C.B.A. Union and the Management on 31‑1‑1981, copy of which is Exh. P.1, whereby the sales commission was fixed at I per cent of the sales. Other items were also decided which related to the upgradation of the post of the salesman and tea allowance. The appellants alongwith one other employee challenged the supplementary settlement, dated 31‑1‑1981 in separate grievance petition. The third employee has not challenged the order of the learned lower Court. It has been decided by the learned lower Court that the settlement in dispute is quite valid.

3. It has been argued on behalf of the appellants that the office holders who signed the settlement Exh. P.1 on behalf of C.B.A. Union were won over by the Management on the promise of promotion and actually they were promoted after the execution of the settlement. It has also been argued that the President of the Union, who signed the settlement was not holding the charge on the date of the execution of the settlement and prior to that had been transferred to Karachi. Both these arguments are untenable. There is no evidence of any promise of promotion and not only the office‑holders, who executed the settlement, were promoted but other workers were also promoted, therefore, there is no force in saying that on the promise of promotion the Management influenced the office‑holders of the C.B.A. Union to sign the settlement. The learned lower Court has also rightly held that Syed Aa1‑e‑Ahmad was holding the charge and did not stand transferred to Karachi on the date of execution of the settlement Exh. P.1. No copy of the transfer order was brought on the record to establish these facts.

4. It has been argued that no copy of the settlement was sent to the Conciliator and the Government, therefore, it was not a valid settlement. No opinion can be expressed on these points, because not only the point of sales commission was determined, but agreement was made on other points also in the settlement, dated 31‑1‑1981 and these points go in favour of the workers. If the settlement is adjudged as invalid, all the salesmen at large will be deprived of the benefits of upgradation of the posts of salesman. So far as tea allowance is concerned, all the workers would be prejudiced. If the C.B.A. had challenged the vires of the settlement, of course, it could be decided whether the settlement Exh. P.1 was a valid document or not. The other workers, who are beneficiaries of settlement Exh. P.1, are not party to the case, therefore, no finding can be given to their prejudice. It is clear from section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 that on the basis of a settlement, some right can be claimed but there is no provision that a settlement can be challenged under the said section. Since a settlement can be arrived at between the C.B.A., and the Management, any of the two may challenge its vires but no other person has this right particularly when certain demands have been accepted to the benefit of the workers. The proper thing for they appellants was to move the C.B.A. to challenge the settlement but they alone could not come forward to derive benefit by getting the settlement set aside and to deprive their fellow workers from the other benefits guaranteed by the settlement. The new settlement Exh. P.1, no doubt, took away the right guaranteed by the earlier settlement, whereby the sales commission was fixed which was to the benefit of the appellants and other workers. If the C.B.A. had come forward to challenge the settlement Exh. P.1 and had remained successful, of course, the rights guaranteed by the earlier settlement with regard to the sales commission would have stood revived, but the benefit of Upgradation of the post of salesman and of tea allowance would have been lost.

5. For the reasons given above, I do not find any scope to interfere with the impugned decision of the learned lower Court.

6. As a result, both the appeals are dismissed.

1. E.

Appeals 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.