1993 PLP 838 (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑Enforcement of right secured under settlement‑‑‑Petitioners claiming facility of weekly holidays on Saturdays instead of Thursdays‑‑ Settlement providing such facility on Saturdays since expired about four years ago and clause of holidays on Saturdays not protected in subsequent settlements‑‑‑Weekly holidays stopped by Management under subsequent settlement about 2 years ago and workers never agitated against such action‑‑ Petitioners, in circumstances, after lapse of 2 years period, held, were barred from claiming that observance of weekly holidays on Saturdays was their secured right for invoking jurisdiction of Labour Court under S.25‑A. S. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi for Appellants. Muhammad Humayoon for Respondent Date of hearing: 31st March, 1988. DECISION This is an appeal, jointly filed by 12 appellants, against a common impugned order, dated 23‑8‑1987, passed by the Sindh Labour Court No. VI at Hyderabad, who had dismissed 3 applications under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969, separately filed by 3 sets of the appellants.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case were that all the appellants claimed to be the workmen of the respondent establishment, therefore, their service rights were guaranteed and secured under the provisions of the Labour Laws, Factories Act, Payment of Wages Act, Workmen's Compensation Act and the settlements, arrived at between the workers and the management, from time to time. Further, it was claimed by the appellants that they were also the members of Sandoz (Pak.) Employees Union which was the Collective Bargaining Agent. Therefore, on 21‑5‑1980, a settlement was arrived at between the parties on a Demand No. 9(b) by virtue of which it was agreed that the factory would observe its weekly closed holiday on Saturdays instead of Thursdays with effect from 31‑5‑1980, and this term was protected in all subsequent settlements, arrived at in the years 1982‑1984 and 1986. So, this settlement is still in operation. The appellants further claimed that till 28‑3‑1984, this settlement was kept on implementation, but, thereafter, quite arbitrarily without any notice, the respondent management had stopped the same. The matter then was complained to the Labour Department, but, as the respondent management did not care to abide by the terms of the settlement and continued to observe Saturday as a working day, therefore, being aggrieved, the C.BA. Union had filed an application under section 34, I.R.O., 1969 before the Labour Court which was dismissed purely on technical grounds that the union cannot espouse the cause of an individual workman, under section 34, I.R.O., 1969. Thus, the appellants claimed that as all of them were aggrieved with the adamant attitude of the respondent management, so, after observing the prescribed grievance procedure, they had submitted their above grievance petitions under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969, before the learned Labour Court.

3. The case of the respondents management before the learned Labour Court was that the petitions of the appellants were not legally maintainable on the grounds that firstly, they were hopelessly time‑barred and secondly, no right was guaranteed or secured to them as the agreement, dated 21‑5‑1980. had already come to an end on expiry of its period and then was superseded by the settlements, dated 1982 and 1984. It was further claimed by the management that prior to 21‑5‑1980, there was a relay system, which was duly protected by settlement of 1980, and this was again enforced after the approval of Inspector of Factories which was duly notified to all the workers. Both the parties led their respective evidence and after hearing them the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order, hence, the present appeal.

4. I have heard Mr. S: Fasahat Hussain Rizvi, the learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Muhammad Humayoon, the learned counsel on behalf of the respondents management and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case as well as the written arguments, submitted by both the parties. It is an admitted position that the cause of action accrued to the appellants, first on 28‑3‑1984 and thereafter day to day, while, grievance notices were served upon the management on 26‑2‑1986, followed by the present grievance petitions under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969. It is a fact on record that the learned Labour Court by consent of both the parties had consolidated all the 3 grievance petitions of the appellants for the purpose of recording evidence of the parties, and one appellant, namely, Sadiq Ali was cross examined by the respondent management on behalf of all the appellants and this witness had clearly confessed in his cross‑examination that "cause of action to us was accrued from 28‑3‑1984". The restrictions in provision of section 25‑A; I.R.O., 1969. are very specific, hence, they are to be strictly followed. It is a settled principle of Law that C.BA. cannot espouse the cause of an individual workman under section 34, I.R.O., 1969. If at all a workman was aggrieved by the alleged arbitrary action of the respondent management, then, there was no bar for him to take legal proceedings against the management. Law does not help the indolent. The appellants should thank themselves for the laches. The appellants cannot be permitted to take advantage of the case laws, as have been referred to by Mr. S. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi the learned Advocate, as these authorities are quite distinguishable. In view of this position, I would hold that the grievance petitions of the appellants under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969, were hopelessly time‑barred and they were rightly dismissed by the learned Labour Court. I would further observe here that this is not a case of any void order or action. It is an admitted position on behalf of the appellants themselves that facility of holidays on Saturdays was allowed to the workers of the respondents management through a bargained settlement, dated 21‑5‑1980, and this settlement was expired after a period of two years, but; in all referred subsequent settlements of 1982, 1984 and 1986, this clause of holiday on Saturday was not given a protection. It is also an admitted position that on 21‑5‑1984, a settlement was arrived at between the management and the C.BA. Union (Exh. A/3 of the record of the learned Labour Court) and by virtue of this settlement, the management stopped g observing Saturday as weekly holiday but the appellants or other workers never agitated against this action which means that they were not dissatisfied with the said action. Thus, after laps of a period of 2 years they are barred from claiming that the grant of holiday of Saturday was their secured and guaranteed right to invoke the jurisdiction of the learned Labour Court under section 25‑A, I.R O., 1969. In view of the matter, I would hold that Mr. S. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi, the learned Advocate for the appellants has miserably failed to substantiate his case, so, I would hold that the impugned order is well reasoned and it must be maintained.

5. For the reasons discussed by me above, I would maintain the impugned order and would accordingly dismiss the present appeal. A.E./1237/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.