1995 PLP 242 (PLC)

Ch. Ashraf for Respondent No.

3. Date of hearing: 16th November, 1994. IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.‑Petitioners are workers in Gatron (Industries) Limited (respondent/ No. 2). Towards the month of May, 1994, they submitted an application under section 50 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, before the Hon'ble Balochistan Labour Appellate Tribunal, seeking interpretation of clause 2.1 of the Settlement, concluded on 15th May; 1993 between the employer and respondent No. 3 (the then Collective Bargaining Agent) in view of various provisions of the West Pakistan Minimum Wages for unskilled workers (Amendment) Act of 1995. The application was contested by the respondents, challenging the locus standi of petitioners to seek interpretation of the settlement. The learned Labour Appellate Tribunal, vide impugned judgment, dated 2nd August, 1994, dismissed the application, as the same filed by individual workers under section 50 of the I.R.O. was not found maintainable. As such, present Constitution petition has been instituted. Mr. Muhammad Shafi Quraishi, learned counsel on behalf of petitioners contended that a settlement arrived at between the parties involves the interpretation of a question of law and not fact, as has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in PLD 1990 SC

972. Therefore, individual workers competently can approach the Labour Appellate Tribunal for interpretation of any clause of such document, because under section 39(c) and (d) of TRO, terms of such settlement are binding upon them, therefore, in absence of the words `party' or `parties' in subsection (1) of section 50 of the IRO, application on behalf of petitioners, was maintainable and the Hon'ble Chairman, may have dispose it of, on merits. He also relied on 1972 PLC 42, PLD 1984 Kar. 503, 1989 CLC 218, 1980 PLC 45 and 1994 SCMR 1135, to support his contention. On the other hand, Mr. S.M. Yakoob, learned counsel for employer (respondent No. 2) contended that according to the scheme of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the C.BA. represents the workers collectively, whereas Authorised Officers represent to the employer and they being in a capacity of a `Party' or `Parties' enter into a settlement or agreement, having its binding force on the workers or workmen functioning at the time when it was arrived at or even those, who shall join the Organisation subsequently. Therefore, the `Parties', who are signatory to the settlement have got locus standi to approach the Labour Appellate Tribunal under section 50 of the I.R.O. for interpretation of the whole or any part of the settlement, but as for as the individual workers are concerned, they cannot be permitted to do so, because if such practise is allowed, it would be against the object of I.R.O. and then there would be no peace and harmony in the Industry. Chaudhry Muhammad Ashraf, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 (the present C.BA.) endorsed the view point of Mr. S.M. Yakoob and additionally stated that subsection (1) of section 50 of the I.R.O. is to be read alongwith subsection (2) of said section, which provides that such application will be disposed of after hearing the parties by the Tribunal, to which the matter is referred under subsection (1), after giving an opportunity of hearing. In this behalf, he referred to various provisions of I.R.O. in which the words `referred' and `parties' have been used. Learned Counsel was of the opinion that the petitioners, in fact are seeking implementation of the West Pakistan Minimum Wages for Unskilled Workers (Amendment) Act of 1993, therefore, for such purpose, they should have filed the grievance individually before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act instead of seeking interpretation of the Settlement, dated 5th May, 1993 or alternatively such grievance can be placed by them before the Labour Court under section 25-A of the I.R.O. if they consider that a right has‑been guaranteed to them under the Minimum Wages (Amendment) Act of 1993. We have, heard the learned counsel for parties at length and also perused the impugned order, keeping in view the relevant provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. It is to be seen that under section 2, clause (xxiv) of IRO settlement means a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings and includes an agreement between the Employer and his Workmen arrived at, otherwise than in the course of any conciliation proceedings where such agreement if writing has been signed by the parties hereto, in such manner as may be prescribed and copy thereof has been sent to the Provincial Government, the Conciliator and other persons, as may be prescribed. Needless to observe that under subsection (12) of section 22 of the IRO, the C.B.A. in relation to an establishment is entitled to undertake collective bargaining with the Employer or Employers on matters connected with the employment, non‑employment, the terms of employment or the conditions of work, other than the matters which relates to the enforcement of any right guaranteed or secured to it, or any workman by or under any law other than this Ordinance or any Award or Settlement and represent all or any of the workman in any proceedings. From these provisions, it is manifestly clear that except the right guaranteed or secured under any law, the Collective Bargaining Agent is entitled to enforce the terms of the settlement or agreement, as at represents to all the workers. Now admittedly the settlement dated 15th May, 1993, has been arrived at between the employer and the CBA i.e. respondent No. 3, therefore, if any, interpretation of its any clause is required that can only be sought for, from the Labour Appellate Tribunal either by Employer or the CBA. No doubt under subsection (1) of section 50 of the IRO, the word `Party' or `Parties' for the purpose of making reference has not been used but it would not mean that the workers in their individual capacity would be entitled to seek the interpretation of the settlement thus it is held that subsection (1) is to be read in conjunction with subsection (2) of section 50 of the IRO, which provides that an opportunity of hearing will be given to a `party' or `parties', which obviously would mean those persons, who have concluded the settlement, according to section 2, clause (xxiv) of the IRO. Thus, it is held that the learned Appellate Tribunal has rightly concluded that an application on behalf of individual workers cannot be entertained. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons the petition has no force which is accordingly dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. H.B.T./502/Q Petition dismissed.