Find a Lawyer

Application No. 2 of 1980, decided on 25th May, 1985.

‑‑‑S. 51‑‑Recovery of money due from employer under Settlement or award‑‑C.B.A. union cannot espouse cause of workman entitled to money‑‑C.B.A. union claiming payment of money on basis of decision of Labour Court in favour of workers‑‑Petition, held, not maintainable and only workmen entitled to said money could Tile application for payment.

S.P. Lodhi for Applicant. S.M. Yaqoob for Respondent.

This petition under section 51 has been filed by the Collective Bargaining Agent Union of Messrs Karachi Pipe Mills Limited against Messrs Karachi Pipe Mills Limited praying therein that this Court be pleased to compute and determine overtime wages payable to the workers for the past.

The respondents have objected to the maintainability of the petition under section 51 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and also on the ground that the petition is vague.

Under section 51 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, this Court has been empowered to recover any money due from an employer under a settlement or under an award or decision of the Arbitrator, Labour Court or Tribunal as arrears of land revenue or as a public demand on application of a person entitled to the money. It is an admitted position that the applicant, which is a Collective Bargaining Agent union, is claiming the payment of the money, in favour of the workers of the respondents on the basis of the decision of this Court, dated 4‑2‑1980 and upheld by the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal. Thus the person entitled to the money are the workers of the respondent's establishment and not the Collective Bargaining Agent Union of the establishment. Section 51 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 does not empower the Collective Bargaining Agent Union to file an application on behalf of the workers for recovery of the money entitled to them from the employer. It is the worker alone who can file an application under section 51 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 A for recovery of the money due to him from the employer under a settlement, or under an award or decision of the Arbitrator, Labour Court or Tribunal. In this connection it will not be out of place to mention here the case reported in 1984 P L C 359 wherein a Full Bench of the High Court of Sind has been pleased to hold that under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, the Collective Bargaining Agent Union is not competent to espouse the causes of workman or workmen of an establishment and can approach the Court under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 only for safeguarding its own rights. On the same analogy under section 51 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 the person entitled to receive any money from the employer has been empowered to file an application before the Labour Court for recovery of the same as arrears of land‑ revenue or as public demand and the C.B.A. Union cannot espouse the cause of the person entitled to the money.

Apart from this legal defect, from perusal of the petition under section 51 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 I find that the same is absolutely vague inasmuch as it neither mentions the names of the workers on whose behalf it has been filed nor describe the period for which the overtime is being sought nor the period of overtime during which the alleged workers/persons performed overtime work and a petition which suffers from vagueness and uncertainty cannot be treated as proper and valid petition.

In view of the above the petition under section 51 is not legally maintainable and cannot be entertained.

Accordingly, I dismiss the same as not maintainable.

A.E.

Petition 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.