1988 PLP 720 (PLC(CS))

(b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII oaf 1969)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.25‑A‑‑Grievance petition‑‑CBA can file petition on behalf of individual workers‑‑Petition by CBA itself not mentioning to have been brought or behalf of worker, held, was incompetent. M.A. Hameed Awan for Appellant Javed Dy. Manager for Respondent Date of hearing: 17th January, 1988 The appeals captioned above emerge from the decisions dated 20‑9‑1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.3, Lahore at Ferozewala whereby the grievance petitions of the appellants were dismissed on the grounds that no grievance notice was given and that instead of the workers the Collective Bargaining Agent (C.B.A.) brought the grievance petitions. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in both the appeals, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.

2. Before me it has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that the grievance notice is invalid inasmuch as it was sent by the union and not by the workers themselves and even the C.B.A. did not send the notice on behalf of the workers. This argument is not tenable. In the grievance notice it was mentioned that it was being sent on behalf of the workers. Section 25‑A of the industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 says that a grievance notice may be sent by the workers himself or through his shop steward or C.B.A. Thus the grievance notice sent by the C.B.A. on behalf of the workers was valid. So far as the service of grievance notice is concerned, the learned lower Court has held that it was not legally served because the notice was given by the General Secretary of the C.B.A. The learned lower Court has further observed that since according to section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. C.B.A. can give notice, and there is no provision that the secretary, of the C.B.A. can give notice, therefore, it could be deemed that nol notice under section 25‑A was served. A notice sent by a C.B. A. is always sent by some office holders of the C. B. A. A General Secretary is an office holder and therefore, notice sent by such an office holder is to be deemed to have been sent by the C .B.A. and therefore, the grievance notice given to the respondent was quite legal. However, the finding of the learned Lower Court that the C.B.A. could not bring the petitions is unexceptional. I do not find any force in the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that since grievance notice was validly given on behalf of the workers by the C.B.A. which fact was mentioned in the grievance petition, therefore, the C.B.A. rightly lodged the grievance petition in its own name. He also argues that the grievance petition was brought on behalf of the workers. I am afraid nowhere in the grievance petition it is so mentioned. There is no provision in section 25‑A(4) that a C.B.A. can itself bring a grievance petition for the enforcement of any right guaranteed to the workers by some law, settlement or award. The workers concerned should have themselves brought the grievance petition or through the C. B. A. The learned lower Court thus rightly held that the petitions were not competent.

3. As a result the appeals fail and are dismissed. Nemo for the parties. A.E. /501/Lb.P???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeals dismissed