1986 PLP 818 (PLC)

Saleem Raza for the Respondents. Date of hearing: 8th September, 1985. DECISION This appeal is agitated against the order of Sind Labour Court No. III at Karachi, dated 9-2-1984, whereby he had allowed the application under section 34, I.R.0 1969 and granted the prayer of Collective Bargaining Agent Union.

2. An application under section 34 of I.R.O., 1969 has been filed for the enforcement of a guaranteed right of payment of full Cost of Living Allowance and Dearness Allowance even in case of lay-off declared under section 11 of the Standing Orders Ordinance. The application was filed by the General Secretary of the Collective Bargaining Agent Union. The applicant Union claimed that under the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, the payment of Wages Act and the Employees' Cost of Living (Relief) Act, 1973, the workers were entitled to full Cost of Living Allowance and Dearness Allowance during the period of lay-off which had always been refused by the management whenever layoff was declared. The C.B.A. Union took up the matter with the management but the management flatly refused to pay more than half the C .O. A. and D. A.

3. The contentions of the appellants (management) in para 8 of the reply statement filed before the Labour Court that whenever workers were laid off, the management had paid lay-off compensation of an amount equal to one-half of their daily wages including half of dearness allowance and Cost of Living Allowance (although the same does not form the part of wages) and they maintained that the application under section 34 of I. R. O. 1969, was not maintainable.

4. I have heard Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani for the appellants and Mr. Saleem Raza for the respondent Union. Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani relies on the decision, reported in 1984 P L C 1359. In this Full Bench authority, it was contemplated that workers themselves may file their grievance applications under section 25-A or 25-A(10) of I.R.O., 1969 before the Labour Court, but the section 34 would not apply in case of individual workers. Section 34 (as amended by Industrial Relations (Amendement) Act, 1973 and section 25-A object of omitting word "workman" from provisions of section 34 seems to be that in section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969, right has been given to workman to seek redress of his grievance in respect of any right guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law or by any award or settlement in manner provided therein. Section 34, I.R.O. 1969 is as under:- "Application to Labour Court.-- Any Collective Bargaining Agent or any Employer may apply to the Labour Court for the enforcement of any right guaranteed or secured to it or him by or under any law or any award or settlement." In nutshell it contemplates that only Collective Bargaining Agent or Employer can apply to the Labour Court for enforcement of any right guaranteed or secured to him or to it by or under any law or any award or settlement and not to the workman. So, section 34 does not apply where workman is agitating .his own case or the case of other workman. He can only agitate under section 25-A or under section 25-A(10) of I. R.O., 1969. In the instant case, one Maskeen Khan claimed the right under section 34 of I.R.O., 1969, which he could not do except he may file grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.0., 1969.

5. This authority is applicable to the instant case and, therefore, the impugned order of the Labour Court is set aside. The worker or workers may file their individual grievance petitions under section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. A.E.???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal allowed.