2004 PLP 38 (PLC)

Raja Muhammad Sarfraz Khan claiming himself to be the representative of petitioner No.1 the Federation and No.2 a locally registered trade union, intends to espouse the cause of workers particularly that of petitioners No.3 to 16 and as such has brought this grievance petition under section 49(4)(e) of the I.R.O., 2002 inter alia on the plea that in view of the charter of demands submitted by the petitioner No.2 a locally registered trade union, wherein as much as 24 demands including that of asking the respondents-management to refrain from changing the terms and conditions as well as the nature of job of petitioners No.3 to 16 from that they had initially been appointed for and as such any decision taken or likely to be taken by the respondents ,management changing. the cadre of the petitioners No.3 to 16 would therefore amount to an act of unfair labour practice specified under section 64 of the I.R.O. and no such decision during the pendency of the aforementioned charter of demands can be imposed on the petitioners. (2) I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties on preliminary objections raised by the respondents in their reply also on the stay application which being incidental to the main petition does not contain a prayer materially and substantially different from that made in the main petition. (3) It seems pertinent to state at the out set that the petitioners No.3 to 16 themselves never appeared before this Bench nor have they signed any documents nor verified the petition nor affidavit annexed thereto. Raja Muhammad Sarfaz khan claiming to himself a dual office of both petitioners No. 1 and 2 the Federation and the trade union respectively, is also stated to have left the employments of the respondents-Bank and as such cannot escape the effects of section 27(b) of the Banking Companies Ordinance. (4) There is no provision in the I.R.O., 2002 entitling a trade union unless it is a CBA to file a grievance petition in respect of individual grievance of a worker or even to represent one or more workers in a joint grievance petition. The petitioner No. 1 i.e. the Federation in respect whereof a complaint under section 10 of the I. R.O. , 1969 for its cancellation vide order dated 28-1-2002 of the learned Chairman N.I.R.C. is shown to have been filed before the Labour Court, has otherwise lost its locus standi to act as a trade union qua the representative espousing. the cause of workers; as regards petitioner No-2 i.e. the trade union, no convincing documents showing it to be a certified CBA has been produced by the petitioner. In this view of the fact I am inclined to hold that neither of the two petitioners is legally competent to espouse the cause of the workers either in respect of their individual or collective grievance. Moreover, section 49(4)(e) of the I.R.O., 2002 whereunder the instant petition has been filed, does not contemplate any such remedy competent to be sought by filing a petition in a representative capacity. If, however, for the sake of arguments or even otherwise it is presumed that the Commission while taking cognizance of a case under section 49(4)(e) of the I.R.O., 2002 assumes the powers vested in the Labour Court within the purview of section 44 read, with section 33 of the I.R.O., it shall have to be acknowledged that both the aforementioned section of the I.R.O. give this right only to a CBA union and none-else. Since neither of petitioner is a certified CBA I am convinced that the so-called self-styled representative of the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 has no locus standi to institute the present grievance .petition. (5) The learned counsel for the petitioners while elaborating the violation of the so-called charter of demand allegedly submitted by the petitioner No.2 has tried to prove it to be an industrial dispute within the purview of the I.R.O. 2002 but his arguments howsoever forceful they may appear, do not seem to have any legal force for the reason that it has not been raised by a CBA as envisaged under section 35 of the I.R.O., As it has already been stated above, the petitioners representative has utterly failed to prove the status of the petitioner No.2 as a certified CBA by producing any cogent and reliable documents and the petitioners Nos. 3 to 16 have never appeared in person and no document including the pleadings have ever been duly verified by them, the representative namely Raja Surfraz Khan, to my mind, is not competent to file this petition, nor the instant petition seems maintainable in its present form. (6) The claim of the petitioner No.2 that it is a CBA ostensibly seem to have laid its foundation simply, on the letter pad of the union i.e. petitioner No.2 which supposes itself to be a CBA, but this printed form without support of any certified document by a competent authority is not sufficient for its recognition. The document produced by the respondents, on the other hand, create a serious doubt even to the very existence of the petitioner No.2 because the list of the trade unions registered in Punjab produced by the respondents does not include the-name of the petitioner No.2. Over and above, nothing is known about the petitioner No.2 since the date of its registration in the year 1979. Needless to mention again that this Commission- has already recommended the matter of cancellation of the petitioner No. 1 i.e. the Federation to the Labour Court. (7) In view of the facts discussed above, there appears no reason to believe that petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 have any legal status, hence they, being incompetent, cannot espouse the cause of the remaining petitioners. The representative namely Raja Sarfraz Khan being a retired employee of the respondent-Bank himself being incompetent in terms of section 27(b) of the Banking Company Ordinance, representing the incompetent bodies i.e. petitioners Nos.1 and 2 has no right to pursue this matter before this Commission. (8) As regards the grievance of the petitioners Nos.3 to 16 since they have never appeared before this Bench nor, have they been represented by a competent person it shall be presumed that they are g not a party in this petition. Even otherwise the contentions of the respondents counsel that in order to save the services of these petitioners/employees from becoming surplus as a result of restructuring policy of the Bank, they are being readjusted with even more pecuniary benefits, I do not find any adverse effect likely to be caused to their employment. In this view of the matter I also do not find the aforementioned policy of the Bank to be the result of any measure calculated to victimize the petitioners for their trade union activities, more so, when they are neither the office-bearers of any trade union nor have they been attributed any specific role' as members of a trade union. (9) In view of what has been discussed above, I do not find any merits in this petition. The same therefore, is dismissed. There is no 1 order as to costs. File be consigned. H.B.T./90/N.I.R.C. Petition dismissed.