MESSRS METRO GARMENTS INDUSTRIES Versus LABOUR UNION, K. M. C. BUILDING

DECISION

This is an appeal filed by Messrs Metro Garments Industries Karachi, against an impugned order, dated 7‑2‑1983, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. III, Karachi, who had allowed the application of the respondent union under section 34, I.R.O. 1969.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent union was a C.B.A. in the appellant management and it had prayed for enforcement of the right under subsection (5) of section 3 of the Employees Cost of Living (Relief) Act, 1973, as amended by the Employees Cost of Living (Relief) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1981 promulgated by the President cf Pakistan on 20‑6‑1981. Thereafter, the General Secretary of the respondent union had sent a letter, dated 8‑10‑1981 to the appellant management that the additional cost of living allowance at the rate of Rs.40 per month be paid to the workers, but the management had avoided to pay the same, hence, the respondent union had submitted an application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, before the Labour Court for the enforcement of the legal rights.

3. The appellant management had resisted the petition and raised a preliminary legal objection to the effect that the subject‑matter of the application was not a secured or guaranteed right of the union and as such individual workers could approach the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act for recovery of Cost of Living Allowance. However, the learned Labour Court had rejected legal objection of the appellant‑management and passed the impugned order allowing the petition, hence the present appeal.

4. I have heard Mr. Wasi Ahmad, the learned representative for the appellant establishment. An application for adjournment has been sent on behalf of Mr. M. L. Shahani the learned Counsel for the respondent union. This adjournment application has been rejected. However, I have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case. Mr. Wasi Ahmad has only stressed on the sole point of Law that the application of the respondent union under section 34, I.R.O. 1969, espousing the cause of worker/workmen, is not legally maintainable hence it be dismissed, therefore, after the dismissal on this main legal issue, there would be no need to argue the matter on merits. Mr. Wasi Ahmad has referred to me to a number of authorities of this Tribunal as well as of superior Courts, such as Appeal No.175 of 1984 Asian Food Industries Labour Union v. Asian Food Industries Ltd., Appeal No. KAR .162 of 1983, Pakistan Cables Ltd. v. Pakistan Cables Employees Union: Appeal No. KAR‑54 of 1984 Shamsi Cloth & General Mills Ltd. v. Shamsi Cloth & General Mills Ltd. Workers Union.

5. It is a settled principle of Law that section 34 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 provisions 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 of settlement is manner provided therein. 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. In view of this legal position and the authorities, an application under section 34, I.R.O. 1969, espousing the cause of workmen/workmen before the learned Labour Court was not legally maintainable, hence, it is dismissed on this sole legal issue. The impugned order passed by the learned Labour Court is mis-conducted and without lawful authority, hence set aside.

6. For the reasons stated by me above, I would set aside the impugned order and would allow this appeal.

S.Q. /1023/Lb.S ?????????

Appeal accepted