2012 PLP 70 (PLC)

ABDUL HAFEEZ CHEEMA (CHAIRMAN).

This application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. questions the legality of the order dated 6-9-2010 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.4, Faisalabad whereby the revision petitioner has challenged the very maintainability of the grievance petition filed by the respondent on the ground that CBA has no locus standi to file the petition.

2. The learned Labour Court however dismissed the application filed by the present petitioner on the ground that under section 44(2) of the Punjab Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2010 the respondent had the authority to file the petition.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the CBA can represent an individual worker or the group of workers to seek relief under section 37 of the Punjab Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2010 and not otherwise.

4. Arguments have been heard and record has been perused.

5. In this case the CBA had raised certain demands and on the IA refusal of the establishment to meet those demands, the matter was taken up by the Conciliator. When it failed, the matter was not referred to the arbitration and the CBA filed a petition under section 44(2) of the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 which lays down:

"The party raising a dispute may at any time either before or after the commencement of a strike or lock out make an application to the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute."

6. A perusal of the relevant provision of law right from sections 38 to 45 of the Punjab Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2010 shows that the law has envisaged complete procedure for the resolution of the dispute between the CBA and the employer through the mechanism provided in these provisions In an identical case, the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal had taken cognizance of the dispute raised by the CBA and was decided the same in accordance with law. (1975 PLC 878). The relevant part reads:

"So far as the merits are concerned, the learned Presiding Officer rejected .the demands simply on the ground that no evidence of any comparable concern was led. This was rather insufficient. He ought to have examined the demands on their own merits. It is clear that the learned Presiding Officer was mainly influenced by his view that the Union was not properly constituted and not competent to raise the dispute although some of the demands were most reasonable and could be accepted without any opposition such as demands with regard to service record, identity cards and holiday books. I do not wish to deal with the remaining demands as it is likely to prejudice one or the other party and leave it to be decided by the Labour Court on merits. In this connection it may be pointed out that even the learned counsel for the respondent not only conceded before me that the aforesaid three demands were reasonable but he informed me that he ? had raised no objection in the Labour Court." Reference may also be made in this to 1982 PLC

84. The authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not appear to be relevant to the issue under discussion.

7. In this view of the matter there is no defect, infirmity or flaw in the impugned order which is accordingly upheld. Consequently, the revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. H.B.T.23/PLT????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.