1972 PLP 1 (PLC)

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 34 & 35(5)

Scope‑Question whether or not particular category of employees were workers‑Not to be decided by Labour Court on application under S. 34‑Management seeking declaration that Trade Union could not raise demands concerning particular category of employees and strike notice served in consequence thereof was illegal‑Prayer not within purview of "industrial dispute" hence not to be adjudi cated by Labour Court under S. 34 or S. 35 (5). MD. NURUL HUDA CHAIRMAN).‑This case arises out of an application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Pakistan National Oils Limited is the first party in this case. Pakistan National Oils Workers' Association and 23 other individuals are the second party. Second party No. 2, Mr. N. I. Golder and the remaining 22 others are the supervising officers under the first party. It is alleged by the first party that these persons are not workers and as such the second party Union cannot raise any demand on their behalf. Even then the Union persisted in representing the alleged grievances of these super visors and placed a charter of demands on their behalf on 26‑3‑1970. The first party raised objection to the demands. There was, however, a conciliation meeting which failed and the Union served a strike notice. It is further said that there is a subsisting agreement between the establishment and the Union in which the 'Union has agreed not to raise any demand involving direct or indirect financial commitment during the period of the agreement. On these main allegations the first party has prayed for certain declarations, namely, the supervisors are employers, that the employers cannot join the Workers' Association, that the Workers' Association cannot raise an industrial dispute on behalf of the employers and such other declarations. The second party No. 1; the Workers' Association ques tioned the maintainability of the application of the first party on the ground that the application does not disclose any industrial dispute for adjudication. The Union, however, main tains that the Supervisors are workers under the definition of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and that the Union can raise demands on behalf of the supervisors. As the application stands, I am inclined to say that this is not maintainable. The reliefs prayed for in the application are in the shape of some declarations mainly. This Court is concerned with adjudication of industrial dispute. Industrial Dispute relates to any dispute or difference between employers and workmen connected with the employment or non‑employ ment or the terms of employment or the conditions of work of any person. The declaration sought for as to whether the supervisors are employers or not, whether employers can join Workers' Association, whether the Workers' Association cane raise industrial dispute on behalf of the employers and all that do not come within the purview of "industrial dispute" The applicant has sought for a declaration that the strike notice is illegal. This Court is Pot for declaration of this nature too. As the prayers stand we are not concerned with the charter of demands submitted by the second party Association on behalf of the supervisors. The Supervisors, it may be mentioned, are Class III em ployees. Whether they are workers or not as defined in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, that is a matter of interpretation. The question of status of the supervisors in, relation to the definition of worker is not for us to decide within the scope of section 34 or subsection (5) of section 35 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. By way of obser vation I may, however, say that any body who is not an employer is a worker under the I. R. O. Any person responsible for the Management, supervision and control of the establishment is also an employer. If supervisors combine in them 3 functions referred to in this sub‑clause then 'they are employers and not workers, if not, they are workers. What exactly are the functions of the different supervisors are not known to us. The first party has, however, placed some papers showing the nature of works of some of the supervisors. We are not sure, whether the second party Association accepts them or not. It is hazardous for us to give any opinion whether supervisors are actually workers or not. Sufficient materials are not available to give any opinion on this and consequently I refrain from giving any decision on the point, whether, the Association can raise any demand on behalf of the supervisors and that in the existence of an agreement between the Association and the Management. I have considered the opinions of both the Members and in my view the application itself is not maintainable. In the result, the application of the first party under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, is rejected.