1998 PLP 12 (PLC)
SHAUKAT HUSSAIN Versus FULL BENCH N.I.R.C., ISLAMABAD and 6 others
| Citation | 1998 PLP 12 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Ihsan-ul-Haq Chaudhry, J |
| Parties | SHAUKAT HUSSAIN Versus FULL BENCH N.I.R.C., ISLAMABAD and 6 others |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 12 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 12 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Ihsan-ul-Haq Chaudhry, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 12 (PLC) (SHAUKAT HUSSAIN Versus FULL BENCH N.I.R.C., ISLAMABAD and 6 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Hafeez Amjad for Petitioner.
- Sadiq Muhammad Warraich for Respondent No. 7
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 15, 16 & 22-A(8)(g)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199-- Workers' union
Entitlement of trade union to office and facility of telephone in premises of Establishment to be provided and financed by employer
No obligation of employer to provide telephone and office to petitioner trade union or any of such union
In terms of S. 15(c), Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, there could be no discrimination between a member or officer of trade union
Providing such accommodation by employer would be violative of provisions of Ss. 15 & 16, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969
Petitioner's union even otherwise was not Collective Bargaining Agent
Any relief in Constitutional jurisdiction would amount to paying premium to petitioner for not allowing referendum to be conducted for appointment of Collective Bargaining Agents as required under law
Members of trade unions should keep strict vigilance on activities of their elective representatives
Officials of trade unions should not be allowed to join hands with employer and secure personal benefits
Public servants who allow or permit any such benefit at the cost of public exchequer to any trade union or its office-bearers, would render themselves liable to be proceeded for misconduct
Petitioner (union) was, thus, not entitled to claim office accommodation or facility of telephone. Abdul Rehman Khan, Assistant Director on behalf of Respondent No. 4
Judgment & Decree
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Union of the petitioner being C.B.A., therefore, is entitled to some facilities to run the affairs efficiently. In this behalf the learned counsel has referred to sections 23-A, 23-B, 23-C and 22(12), I.R.O., 1969. It is added that the C.B.A. could not function properly without office and facility of telephone.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 7 argued that the Union of the petitioner was C.B.A. only for 1987 to 1989 and now it is only prolonging its life by various under hand tactics. It is added that all unions whether C.B.A. or not are entitled to equal treatment. Legally there cannot be any discrimination between the two unions. In this behalf, he has referred to section 15(c) of the I.R.O., 1969. It is argued that none is authorised to persuade a workman to join or refrain from joining a trade union during working hours in view of the provisions of section 16(a) of the I.R.O., 1969.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, gone through the record as well as precedent case. There is no obligation on the part of the employer to provide telephone and office to the petitioner rather any of the trade unions. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to lay his hands to any provision of law under which the petitioner is entitled to these facilities. On the other hand, learned counsel for the contesting respondent has rightly referred to section 15(c), according to which, there cannot be any discrimination. The relevant portion reads as under:-- "
15. Unfair labour practices on the part of employers.
(1) No employer or trade union of employers and no person acting on behalf of either shall-- (a)
(b)
(c) discriminate against any person in regard to any employment, promotion, condition of employment or working condition on the ground that such person is, or is not, a member or officer of a trade union; or"
5. This is not all. The law prohibits canvassing to join or refrain from joining a trade union during working hours and in case any union, C.B.A. or otherwise is provided accommodation by the employer this will be violative of the provisions of sections 15 and 16 of the I.R.O., 1969. This way at least the claim of the petitioner that provision of office and telephone facilities or even any other facility by the employer is barred under the above two provisions of law.
6. Now coming to the other argument that the petitioner is C.B.A. It is clear from the order of respondent No. 1 that it was certified as C.B.A. on 29-9-1987. It is too late in the day for the petitioner to claim still to be a C.B.A. Any, relief in the Constitutional jurisdiction would amount to paying premium to petitioner for not allowing the referendum held for appointment of C.B.A. as required under the law.
7. It is a matter of great regret that some of the labour organisations claim privileges over and above the law, settlement or award and the employers do oblige them. Respondent No. 1 in this behalf observed as under:
........ Of late the industrial relation in various organisation is not presenting good spectacle of the system and the provision of offices and other facilities being enjoyed by the union without the sanction of settlement or award or coverage of law in the premises meant for carrying on public service or such business as required by their respective charters, are furthering the cause of unfair labour practice and consequently marring working of the institution engaged in public utility service " The member of the trade unions should keep a strict vigilance on the activities of their elected representatives. They should not be permitted to join hand with the employer and secure personal benefits. Such persons are guilty of betraying the confidence reposed in them by their fellow colleagues. At the same time the public servants like respondents Nos. 3 to 5, who allow or permit any such benefit at the cost of public exchequer to any trade union or its office-bearer or any person shall render themselves liable to be proceeded under E&D Rules for misconduct.
8. The upshot of the above discussion is that there is no merit in this writ petition. The same is dismissed in limine. A.A./S-145/L Petition dismissed.