1972 PLP 114 (PLC)

Shujauddin v. Husan Ara Begum etc. P L D 1964 Lah. 292; Chowdhry Safdar Ali v. Malik Ikram Illahi and another 19695 C M R 116; Abdul Mannan v. Haji Karam Illahi and another P L D 1971 Quetta 1 and Salamat Ali Jafri v. The Province of West Pakistan and others P L D 1956 Lab. 5411 rel. Z. A. Chishti for Applicants. M. A. Khan for Respondents. AWARD AGHA ALI HYDER (CHAIRMAN).‑The petition filed by the General Secretary, Midway House Employees' Union, Karachi, made out that Shahabuddin, Abdul Ghani, Muhammad Rafiq, Muhammad Hanif and Sheikh Mahboob had been appointed as Drivers by the respondents on various dates and among other emoluments, were getting an allowance of Rs. 25 per month for the maintenance of the Motor vehicles. On 3rd April 1969, an order was issued by the respondents to keep the buss clean and shining or else the payment of the allowance would be stopped. The order was un warranted as the cleaning, washing and polishing of the buses was the duty of Cleaners and Sweepers. The Drivers lodged protest on 8th April 1969, but the same went unheeded and the aforesaid allowance was stopped with effect from 1st May 1969. Thereafter, there were several meetings between the Representatives of the Union and the Management but the same fizzled out on 20th June 1969. The Drivers had submitted an application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 in January 1970 but the same was withdrawn due to technical defects and the present petition came to be filed by the General Secretary of the Union. The reply statement made out that the allowance of Rs. 25 per month was for the maintenance of the vehicles which included their washing, polishing and cleaning. The drivers had been performing these duties willy‑nilly for a considerable time and would occasionally stop the same on one pretext or the other. They had again stopped the cleaning and washing from 3rd April 1969 and the allowance was stopped and an extra hand was employed for the said jobs. The respondents were, however, prepared to restore the allowance provided the Drivers consented to perform their part of the contract. The petition was frivolous and also did not lie, as the cause of action had arisen on 1st May 1969, while the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was promulgated on 3rd November 1969. The witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioners were Manzoorul Haque, General Secretary of the Union and Abdul Ghani, a Driver while the respondents examined Mr. Azhar Abbas their Personnel Officer. The petition has been filed under Standing Order 18 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 and section 34 of the Industrial Relation's, Ordinance, 1969. Mr. M. A. Khan, learned Representative for the respondents argued that Standing Order 18 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 would not be attracted because that envisaged the redress al of individual grievances and the petition could be filed within 30 days from the date of the decision of the employer Mr. Chisti, learned counsel for the petitioners made a faint attempt to meet the challenges and I am afraid the contention must prevail. It was also argued by Mr. N. A. Khan, learned Representative for the respondents that the petition would not lie under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, because the prescribed procedure within the meaning of section 43 .of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 had not been followed and also because the Petitioners did not base their case on the enforcement of any right guaranteed or secured under a Settle ment or Award. Section 43 of the said Ordinance, ii rather unhappily worded as observed in Abdul Jalil v. Registrar, Trade Unions, West Pakistan, Lahore and others (P L D 1971 Lah. 220). Further in view of the amendment in the said Ordinance in 1970, when a petition under section 34 can be filed by an individual workman without resort to notices under sections 26 and 28, it will be rather late in the day to insist that the said procedure should be followed by the Collective Bargaining Agent. Section 34 of the Ordinance, in my view, will be just a procedural law and there is no vested interest in the procedure. No authorities have been cited in that context by either side but Shujauddin v. Husan Ara Begum etc. (P L D 1964 Lah. 292), Chowuhry Safdar Ali v. Malik Ikrarn Illahi and another (1969 S C M R 116), Abdul Mannan v. Haji Karam Maid and another (P L D 1971 Quetta 1) and Salamat Ali Jafri v. The Province of West Pakistan and others (P L D 1956 Lah. 548) fortify me in that view. It is also to be noted that the word 'Industrial Dispute' had been eliminated from section 34 and even under the earlier Ordinance any right guaranteed or secured to a workman under any law could be agitated in the Labour Court. In my view, it is the bounden duty of an employer to pay his employee or employees in term of the contract agreed upon by the parties That is the Law of the land. It was the case of the petitioner that the allowance which was a part of their pay was withheld without any vestige of reasonableness or legality. I am of the view that the same could be investigated by this Court. The cause of action patently is of a recurring nature. It is to be seen that in the letter of appointment Annexure `A', Exh. A. W. 1/1 and Exh. A. W. 1/2, there was the mention of an allowance of Rs. 25 per month without any qualifications. It is only in Exh. A. W. 1/3, that the word `Vehicles Maintenance Allowances' had been added. It is alleged by Abdul Ghani that the same was meant for checking of oil, repairing of the punctures of the tyres etc., and not for washing, cleaning and sweeping the vehicles. Even the respondents admit that sweeping is not a part of their duty, but the polishing and cleaning is to be done by them. The fact, however, remains that the allowance according to the letter of appointment did not detail these duties specifically. It is also admitted by Mr. Azhar Abbas that this work was not being done by the Drivers of the K. L. M., B. O. A. C., P. I. A. and P. A. A. He, however, qualified the statement by saying that they were also not getting any Maintenance Allowance. No evidence had been led to corroborate part of the statement through any employees of these Organisa tions, on the showing of the respondents themselves, the Drivers had always raised objections to do these works. Even Mr. Azhar Abbas has candidly admitted that there was nothing on the record to show as to what was the specific purpose for the allowance of Rs. 25 per month, except what was to be found in Exh. A. W. 1/3. As the matters stand, I am, therefore, of the opinion that the respondents were ill‑advised to withhold the allowance, if the drivers had refused to do some thing which they were not bound to do under the terms of their employment. I will, therefore, allow the petition and direct the respondents to pay the arrears of the allowance with effect from 1st May 1969 and to continue paying the same in future as per terms of the employment of the drivers. Award accordingly. Announced in open Court.