Find a Lawyer

Petition No. 262 of 1986, decided on 29th May, 1986.

---S. 49 (3)--Industrial dispute---Appearance of legal practitioner- Requirement--Permission to be represented by legal practitioner, held. is necessary when "industrial dispute" was pending in Labour girt and not otherwise.

---S. 2(xiii)--Industrial dispute, connotation of--Registration of trade union--Where dispute between parties related to registration of trade union, registering authority being neither employer of members of same nor a workman, such dispute, held, would not fall within ambit of "Industrial dispute".

---Ss. 2 (xiii) & 8-A--"Industrial dispute", connotation of Right guaranteed or secured by or under any law, award or settlement have been exempted from term "industrial dispute" no permission, held, was required to engage legal practitioner for appearance before Labour Court.

This order shall dispose of two applications-both moved by the Bismillah Labour Union through its General Secretary Muhammad Hanif Sabri, Punjab Road Transport Corporation, Intercity Depot, Multan, seeking permission to engage a legal practitioner as its counsel under section 49 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and a restraining order against the appearance of S.M. Abbas Qureshi, Advocate on behalf of respondent No.2 respectively.

2. In the first application, it has been stated that proceedings in hand revolve around complicated legal issues which are beyond the approach of the office-bearers of the appellant union because they are laymen. In the given situation, the appearance of a legal practitioner on their behalf, to safeguard their interests and the general interest of the establishment, is necessary. As such necessary permission for appointment of a legal practitioner, under section 49 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance,. 1969 may be granted.

3. In the second application, the appellant says that legal practitioners have been debarred to appear in the Labour Court. They can appear in the Court by obtaining necessary permission under section 49 ibid. Without obtaining said permission S.M. Abbas Qureshi, Advocate has been appearing on behalf of respondent No.2. He cannot do so. He may be directed to obtain necessary permission. In case, he is not willing for that then he should be restrained accordingly.

4. These applications have only been opposed by the respondent No.2. According to him the permission is necessary only in an industrial dispute. The appeal under consideration is not an industrial dispute as such he has not sought any permission to that effect. Similarly, the appellant is not bound to seek such permission. He may engage any legal practitioners according to its own sweet will.

5. With a view to settle the controversy, I have examined the case in the light of the argument of both the parties. Keeping in view, the facts of the case and' relevant provisions of law my opinion is that contention of respondent No.2 is true. Certain restrictions have been imposed on the appearance of legal practitioners by section 49 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 which runs as under:-

"49.-(1) A workman who is a party to an industrial dispute shall be entitled to be represented in any proceedings under this Ordinance by an officer of a collective bargaining agent and subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) and subsection (3) any employer who is a party to an industrial dispute shall be entitled to be represented in any such proceeding by a person duly authorised by him.

(2) No party to an industrial dispute shall be entitled to be represented by a legal practitioner in any conciliation proceedings under this Ordinance.

(3) A party to an industrial dispute may be represented by a legal practitioner in any proceedings before the Labour Court, or before an Arbitrator, with the permission of the Court or the Arbitrator, as the case may be."

As is apparent sub section (3) of section 49 is only relevant for the decision of these applications. According to sub section (3) the permission is necessary when an industrial dispute is pending in the Labour Court and not otherwise.

6. An industrial dispute has been defined by section 2 (xiii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 in these words:-

"(viii) "Industrial dispute" means any dispute or difference between employers and employers or between employers and workmen or between workmen and workmen which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or the conditions of work of any person; and is not respect of the enforcement of any right guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law, other than this Ordinance, or any award or settlement for the time being in force:"

Whether the appeal under adjudication falls within the definition of industrial dispute. The answer is in negative, between the appellant and respondent No.l, the point in dispute is about the registration of the appellant. The respondent No.l being neither an employer of the members of the appellant union nor a workman in this connection takes away the dispute from the ambit of the definition of the industrial dispute.

7. Between the appellant and the respondent No.2 the relationship) of employer and workman is proved. At the same time terms and conditions of the service of the office-bearers of the appellant union are involved between the two because the appellant has sought injunction against dismissal, discharge or transfer of its office-bearers till the decision of the appeal. However, this aspect of the case has been excluded by the second part of the definition of the industrial dispute. The second part has exempted the rights guaranteed or secured by or under any law, award or settlement from the term industrial dispute. The protection sought by the appellant is given by section 8-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. It being law shall therefore, fall out from the same.

8. In this view of the matter, the contention of respondent No.2 is accepted. There is no need to seek any permission of this Court in the present matter. The parties are at liberty to engage the legal practitioners of their choice. Both the applications accordingly are dismissed.

A. A. Applications 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.