1976 PLP 635 (PLC)

3. Almost similar reply statements were filed on behalf of the respondents in both these applications. Their very first objection was that the applications were not maintainable as the applicant-Union not being the Collective Bargaining Agent could not seek protection of I. R. O., 1969. They have denied all other allegations and stated that there was a Works Council for the employees of the Bank in Karachi since April 1970 in which the representatives of the Collective Bargaining Agent were included as per provisions of section 24 I.R.O., 1969. They attacked Application No. 246/72 on the, ground that it was not maintainable for non-joinder of the United Bank Employees' Union as a party to it. According to them United Bank Employees' Union was formed in the end of 1969 and till July 1971 it was the only Union representing the bank's workmen in Karachi, hence by virtue of section 22,I. R. O., 1969 this Union was deemed to be the Collective Bargaining Agent. In July, 1971 some of the Bank's workmen formed another Union namely, United Bank Workers' Union. On 6-3-1972 a third Union by the name of United Bank Workmen Union was formed but recent it was dissolved as per intimation received from the Registrar of Trade Unions on 10-6-1972. The applicant-Union being the 4th Union, informed the respondents of its formation on 16-3-1972. In view of these facts the United Bank Employees' Union was a Collective Bargaining Agent under the provisions of section 22, of I. R. O., 1969 and section 30 (2) of the I. R. O., (Amendment) Ordinance, 1970. The Management of the respondents and the United Bank Employees' Union had entered into a settlement on 31-3-1972 under section 27-A of I. R. O., 1969, whereby all the workmen of the Bank employed in Karachi irrespective of their Union's affiliation were financially benefited. Finally they submit that since the applications were not maintainable, they did not call for any adjudication by this Court.

4. On 10-10-1972 the learned Representative for the respondents made an application whereby he requested that legal objection relating to the maintainability of the applications should be disposed of first before enteric into the merits of the case.

5. Since the legal objection in both these applications is the same I am disposing of both these applications by a single award.

6. I have heard the learned Representative for the parties on the said legal objection.

7. The case of of the respondents is that the applicants are not the Collective Bargaining Agent and hence they could not seek protection under section 34, I.R.O., 1969. It is an admitted fact that at the time of filing of these applications viz. 11-5-1972 the present applicants were not the Collective Bargaining Agent, hence the question arises whether they could file applications under section 34, I. R. O., 1969 for adjudication.

8. Before going further it is necessary to define section 34, I. R. O., 1969 as it stood at the time of filing of these cases. It runs as under: "

34. Application to Labour Court.-Any collective bargaining agent or any employer or workman may apply to the Labour Court for the enforcement of any right guaranteed or secured to it or him or by or under any law or any award or settlement."

9. Raising of an industrial dispute is defined under section 43, I. R. O., 1969 which runs as under: "

43. Raising of industrial disputes.-No industrial dispute shall be deemed to exist unless it has been raised in the prescribed manner by a collective bargaining agent or an employer."

10. Again industrial dispute is defined under section 2 (xiii), I.R.O., 1969 which runs as under "2 (xiii). Industrial Dispute means any dispute or difference between employers and employees or between employers and workmen or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employ ment or non-employment or the terms of employment or the conditions of work of any person."

11. It is an established legal position that the rival Trade Union (though it may be registered) not certified, as Collective Bargaining Agent is incompetent to raise industrial disputes. The learned Representative for the respondents have also filed a photo copy of the decision in Appeal No. KAR-29 of 1972, wherein, it has been held that no industrial dispute could be deemed to exist unless a Collective Bargaining Agent raises it. This is exactly what section 43, I. R, O., 1969 says. Furthermore the learned Representative for the respondents has quoted an authority as reported in P L D 1973 Kar. 7 in support of his version.

12. As already pointed out it is an admitted position that the applicant Union was not Collective Bargaining Agent at the time these applications were filed. Hence I hold that the applicant-Union could not file the present applications under section 34, I. R. O., 1969 as amended. Thus I dismiss both these Applications No. 246/72 and 274/ 72 as non-maintainable. Announced in open Court.