Karachi Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme 1973

2018 PLCN 27 LABOUR-APPELLANT-TRIBUNAL-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 48(5) & 17Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act (IX of 1974), S.3Karachi Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1973, Para. 18Dock workersVacancy in higher category to be filled from the next lower categoryDetermination ofEighty workers were selected from dock workers for transfer to winch department by drawing lots

Out of which 22 had surrendered their selection in favour of respondents (2l to 42) and they were substituted in their place

Respondents who were unlucky in the draw, challenged the substitution on the grounds that transfer of respondents (21 to 42) to winch department was illegal having been made without following the procedure

Validity

As per Para. 18 of the Karachi Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1973, vacancy in any higher category was to be filled from the next lower category on seniority cum fitness basis

Employers had selected 80 persons from dockworkers for winch workers on seniority cum fitness basis but by drawing lots

Twenty two workers had surrendered their selection in favour of respondents (21 to 42) and they were substituted

Respondents (01 to 20) had no objection about the selection by drawing lots but to the substitution of respondents (21 to 42)

Objecting respondents had alleged that it was a kind of discrimination against them in the sense that substitution of 22 workers deprived them of trying their luck again in the draw of lots for the selection of 22 winchmen

Matter of the respondents (01 to 20) was the case of purported unfair labour practice and not of individual grievance as said respondents had not claimed any relief for them

Surrender and substitution did not fall in the ambit of unfair labour practice

Respondents (01 to 20) did not plead that they were discriminated against on account of being or not being members or office-bearers of any trade union

Petition filed before Labour Court, in circumstances, was not maintainable

Appeal was allowed and the petition filed before the Labour Court was dismissed being not maintainable.

1991 PLC 846 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 3Karachi Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme. 1973, paras. 2, 7 & 51Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 10Registration of Trade Union

Petitioners'objection to the registration of Trade Union of contesting respondent was brushed aside and same was granted certificate of Collective Bargaining Agent

Validity

Petitioners'objection to the registration of Trade Union was that petitioners were not employers of the members of Trade Union and members of Trade Union being not in their employment could not be registered

Members of respondent Trade Union being registered with Dock Labour Board were governed by the requirements of Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1991, and Karachi Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1973

Different gangs of workers were formed who were wedded with particular tidal and on requirement of such workers by Stevedores, works were provided on rotation basis, for their casual employment by petitioners

Status of tindals, serangs and dock workers of any category including cleaning workers being the same, they were governed by the same law

None of the members of Trade Union were in permanent employment of any of the petitioners establishments

Provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 being not applicable to some of the workers who were one of the category of Dock Workers, registration of respondent as a Trade Union and certification thereof as Collective Bargaining Agent was without jurisdiction and unlawful.

1991 PLC 826 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Karachi Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme 1973Cl. 8, Entry (f) (as amended by Notification S.R.O. 39(KE), dated (11-2 1987)

Workmen were retired from service after attaining age of 60 years, not only by resolution passed by Board in accordance with settlement entered into between Board and Collective Bargaining Agent which provided for retirement of dock workers at age of 60 years, but were retired after introduction of amendment in Scheme which had vested Board with power to fix age of superannuation of registered dock workers

Workmen having been retired by Board exercising powers vested in it through amendment in Scheme it could not be said that Board had acted without lawful authority.

1990 PLC 159 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S.3Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Ordinance, (XXV111 of 1973), PreambleKarachi Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1973, Para 35(2)

Levy of Education Cess from the Stevedores in relation to their employment of Dock Workers fell outside the scope of the Workers Children's (Education) Ordinance and is thus not warranted by law.

1986 CLC 1619 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 3Karachi Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1973, paras. 2, 51 & 7(l)(b) & (k)Regularity of employmentStatus of regulating bodyDetermination of

Registered employers have to pay remuneration to workers assigned to them and also to pay welfare measures under para. 51 of Scheme

Object of Scheme relates to ensuring greater regularity of employment for dock workers and to secure adequate number of dock workers for efficient performance of dock work

Karachi Dock Labour Board constituted under Scheme, held, is not employer, but merely a regulatory body.

1984 PLC 1570 NATIONAL-INDUSTRIAL-RELATIONS-COMMISSION Judicial Precedent

S. 53 read with S. 15 (1) (d) & (e) read with Karachi Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1973-Unfair labour practice-Karachi Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment), Scheme, 1973 providing prohibition of engagement of non-registered dock workers to do dock work-By-road workers (unregistered) engaged by Exporter and not by Stevedoring firm not for dock work but for unloading trucks going directly into ship-Accused (one office-bearer of Trade Union and 3 workers non-office-bearers) alleged to have prevented trucks from going into ship-hold, threatened to damage trucks and instigated dock-workers to go on illegal strike with demand that road by workers should not be engaged-Evidence supporting allegations against non-office-beares accused but no overt act leading to illegal strike established against office-bearer accused except that he declined to persuade dock workers to allow work to continue-Office-bearer accused, in circumstances, acquitted. Other accused appearing to have been misguided into thinking that by-road workers were doing dock-work-Lenient view in circumstances, taken by National Industrial Relations Commission and fine of Rs. 500 imposed on each accused instead of sentence of imprisonment.

1979 PLC 349 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 2 (viii), (ix), (xiv) 3c 25-A read with Dock Workers' (Regulation of Employment) Act (IX of 1974) and Karachi Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1973, para. 3 -"Employer", "establishment", "Industry"-"Registered Dock Worker"

Definitions Dock Workers not employed by Board and, therefore, terms "employer", "establishment" or "industry" would have no reference to it-Provisions of Ordinance, held, - inapplicable to Dock Labour Board

Orders passed by Labour Court under S. 25-A of Ordinance in respect of Dock workers declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.