1992 PLP 852 (PLC(CS))

By this Revision Application the Applicant has invoked suo motu jurisdiction of this Tribunal under section 38(3-A) of I.R.O., 1969 with the prayer that this Tribunal may consider the legality, propriety and the correctness of the order dated 2-5-1990 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court NQ. VII at Sukkur dismissing the complaint filed by the Applicant under section 54 of IRO 1969 before the learned Labour Court.

2. I have heard Mr. Mehmood A. Ghani for the Applicant and Mr. M.L. Shahani for the respondent and have also gone through the relevant documents filed by the parties.

3. The brief facts of the case are, that there was settlement between the applicant establishment and the Collective Bargaining Agent/Workers Union of the Applicant establishment which was signed by parties on 8-11-1989.

4. Para 1 of the general clause of this settlement provides as under:- "This settlement shall be in operation for a period of two years with effect from 21st September, 1989 and during this period, the union agrees and undertakes not to raise any demand involving any financial implications either directly or indirectly and not to go on strike of any kind and resort to any interruption or slow of work or any tactics whatsoever."

5. However, on 27-1-1990 the respondent No. 1 who is President of Union allegedly raised a demand for regularisation of 106 daily wage workers whose list was allegedly attached with the demand. This letter of demand has been produced as Annexure C-2. Another demand Annexure C-3 was raised on 8-1-1990 by Mr. Muhammad Afzal Khan Councillor of Security Staff. The applicant considered raising of these demands to be violative of the settlement as the demands involved financial implications. They therefore filed a complaint under section 54 against 5 office-bearers of the Employees Union.

6. The learned Labour Court however was of the view, that demand Annexure A-1 did not raise any financial implications because it was merely for regularisation of 106 persons who were working as daily wage workers and not for the fresh recruitment.

7. With regard to demand under Annexure A-3 the learned Labour Court held that it was raised by respondent No. 5 who was a Councillor in the complainant company and that in his official capacity he demanded additional security staff and certain articles for the use of the said office.

8. Obviously the respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are not signatories to these demands and there is no evidence connecting them with these demands. Section 54 makes the persons who commits breach of any terms of any settlement to be liable for punishment. It does not provide for constructive liability of such breach as is provided under section 63 in the case when offence is committed by a Corporation. Therefore, the learned Labour Court was justified in dismissing the complaint against respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4.

9. A demand is raised under section 26(1) by Collective Bargaining Agent. Demand Annexure C-3 is not raised by a Collective Bargaining Agent but is raised by Councillor of security staff for additional security staff and for certain articles required for the use of such staff. The aforementioned general' clause of settlement only binds the union not to raise any demand but does not bind the Councillor of Security Staff not to raise any demand. This demand Annexure `C-3' cannot be said to have been raised by union so as to come within the mischief of the provisions of general clause. This respondent No.5 was not even signatory to the settlement which is Annexure `C-1'. The learned Labour Court has therefore rightly dismissed the complaint against respondent No. 5.

10. It leaves with us with the case of demand under Annexure C-2 raised by respondent No. 1 who is President of Union. Mr. M.L. Shahani has contended that the applicant neither in his complaint which has been produced as Annexure C-5 nor is his statement under section 200 which is Annexure C-6 has shown as to what is the financial implication in this demand. Mr. Mehmood A. Ghani contends that this demand indirectly involves financial implications. The demand is raised for regularisation of 106 workers, who are said to be working on daily wage basis. There is no evidence on record to show that if they are regularised, then the applicant would have to pay more to such workers. This demand prima facie does not call for any fresh recruitment. It is contended by the applicant that alleged daily wage workers whose names are shown in the list produced alongwith Annexure C-2 are not their employees. The learned Labour Court has come to the conclusion that there was nothing on the record to show that this list was attached with the demand and that it did not bear the signature of respondent No.l. I rind that even in the demand Annexure C-2 there is no mention of any attached list of the daily wage workers.

11. Mr. Riaz Hussain, the complainant in his statement has stated that the persons named in Annexure A/2 may be on the Roll of Independent Contractor who is assigned casual and incidental job. In this context, para 28(2) of the Settlement would be relevant which reads as under:- "28.2. During the course of bilateral negotiations, the union raised the demand for regularization of the workmen engaged through Labour Contractor. The management explained that cases of as many as fifty five workmen have already been in active consideration of NFC and Ministry of Production. As soon as the cases are cleared, the workman will be placed on the regular roll of the company." On analysis of this clause of settlement, it would seem that there was a demand for regularization of all workmen engaged through Labour Contractor. The management explained that the cases of 55 workers had already been in active consideration of N.F.C. and the Ministry of Production and as soon as those cases are cleared, the workmen would be placed on regular basis. The last sentence could also mean that after the case of 55 workers was decided, then on the basis of such decision, the workmen viz., all those workmen who were engaged through Labour Contractor, in respect of whom demand for regularization was made would be placed on regular Roll of the Company. Where two interpretations are possible, then it is a settled law that interpretation favourable to the workmen has to be accepted. If the last sentence is interpreted in the 'way as pointed above, the demand for regularization of such workmen cannot be considered to be in violation of the Settlement.

12. Be that as it may the respondent No.l's only demand is for the regularisation of the workers who were already in the employ of the applicant but were being paid their wages on daily basis. The applicant however denied that there were any such daily workers in their employment. The question as to whether such workers were daily wage workers or not or whether they were entitled to be regularised as a matter of right under West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 is a question that could be decided by the learned Labour Court only if such industrial dispute under section 32(1-A) is raised and if in such dispute the Court holds that they were not daily wage workers, then alone the applicant could have prosecuted respondent No. 1 for committing any breach of the settlement and that also after proving that demand involved any additional expenditure on the part of applicant.

13. This complaint even against respondent No.l was premature.

14. From mere denial by the applicant that there were no daily wage workers and that the persons shown in the list were not their daily wage workers, the Court could not prima facie come to the conclusion, that the demand of regularisation of such workers was in breach of the aforesaid clause of settlement, specially in absence of evidence to show as to what additional financial burden would be involved in case the daily wage workers were regularised.

15. In view of above discussion I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned Labour Court. The revision application is therefore dismissed. M.Y.H./1876/Lb.S Revision dismissed.