1987 PLP 111 (PLC)

Ali Amjad for Respondent. Date of hearing: 27th July, 1986. This is an appeal filed by the appellant Management of Messrs Pakistan Cables Limited, Karachi, against an impugned order, dated 28th April, 1983, passed by the IInd Sind Labour Court, Karachi, on an application under section 34I I.R.O. 1969 of the respondent union.

2. The facts of the case are that an application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, was submitted by the Collective Bargaining Agent, the respondent herein, for seeking direction of the Labour Court to the appellant Management for enforcement of the rights guaranteed /secured under section 47 of the Factories Act, to the workmen belonging to the appellant Management for getting wages in respect of the overtime work that they performed beyond 9 hours a day and 48 hours a week, in the establishment of the appellant at the rate of twice their respective ordinary rate of pay with which the workers are being regularly deprived by the appellant Management. That in view of the dispute between the appellant Management, and the respondent Collective Bargaining Agent regarding the payment of overtime work performed generally by the workmen in the establishment, conciliation talks had taken place wherein it had been agreed on 7‑2‑1981, by the parties to the effect that this Tribunal be approached for obtaining interpretation in the matter and following the decision, the appellant Management shall pay the difference, if any. That, subsequently, having realized that as no interpretation of any provision of a settlement was involved in the matter, therefore, it was agreed that the issue between the parties be got resolved through the Labour Court, hence a petition under section 34, I.R.O. 1969, which was allowed by the learned Labour Court.

3. The appellant Management resisted the petition before the learned Labour Court by raising a legal objection on the maintainability of the petition that under section 47 of the Factories Act, the right, if any, had been guaranteed to the workman in general, and not to the Collective Bargaining Agent and the workmen either alone under section 25‑A of I . R. O. , 1969 of jointly, with others under section 25‑A (10) of I . R. O. , 1969, could approach the Labour Court for the redressal of their grievance. The appellant Management has based the objection, mainly on the fact that only 183 workmen employed by them are governed by the Factories Act. They further challenged that inclusion of Family Medical allowance, Rail Fare allowance, Lunch allowance, Fire Fighting allowance, Cash Canteen Subsidy to Marketing Staff, Night allowance, Conveyance allowance, uniform and officiating allowance in the ordinary rate of pay do not fall under the definition of ordinary rate of pay.

4. I have heard Mr. Abdul Hafeez, the learned Advocate for the appellant Management and Mr. Ali Amjad, the learned Advocate for the respondent union and have gone through the record and proceedings of the case. Mr. Abdul Hafeez for the appellant Management, while arguing on his sole objection regarding the maintainability of the application of the respondent union under section 34, I.R.O. 1969, has relied upon a decision of this Tribunal, dated 8‑9‑1985, Appeal No. KAR‑54 of 1984 in the case of Messrs Shamsi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Shamsi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. Workers Union. Mr. Abdul Hafeez also referred to me to a Full Bench authority, reported in 1984 P L C 1359, wherein it was contemplated that workers themselves may filed their grievance application under section 25‑A or 25‑A(10) of I. R.O. 1969, would not apply in case of individual workers. Section 34 (as amended by Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 1973), and section 25‑A object of omitting word 'workman' from the provision 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 the manner provided therein. Section 34 of I.R.O. 1969, is relevant to be reproduced hereunder:‑ "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, the respondent union, i.e. the Collective Bargaining Agent in the appellant management is agitating the cause of only 183 individual workman, under section 34 o Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Thus, as it could not do so, therefore, an application of the respondent union under section 34, I.R.O. 1969 is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

5. For the reasons stated by me above, the impugned order is set aside and the present appeal is allowed. S . Q. Appeal allowed.