MESSRS ASIAN FOOD INDUSTRIES LABOUR UNION Versus MESSRS ASIAN FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI

DECISION

This is an appeal filed by the appellant Labour Union against an impugned order, dated 26‑5‑1984, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. II, Karachi, who had dismissed the application under section 34 of I.R.0.1969, filed by the appellant Labour Union.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant, union was the Collective Bargaining Agent of the workmen in the respondent factory which carries on the manufacturing of sweets, toffees, bubble gums and packing thereof as well as the word of loading and unloading which also carried out and for this purpose the respondents are maintaining a regular establishment of 150 workman and a temporary establishment also of about 150 workers although the nature of the work is permanent and not a single worker in the respondent's factory can be described as temporary. They further claimed that this was being done with a view to deprive the workers of their rights as a permanent workers. Further, the case of the appellant union was that it had on several occasions requested the respondent for treating the temporary workers as permanent workers but of no avail. Therefore, being aggrieved the matter was taken to the Joint Director (Labour) West Division wherein joint meetings were held between the parties but without success, hence the present petition under section 34,1.0.R.1969.

3. Respondent establishment in their reply statement had objected to the maintainability of the petition under section 34 of the I.R.O. 1969. On facts, it was admitted by the respondent establishment that there were a private limited company, but, denied that they were maintaining permanent workmen and temporary workmen.

4. The appellant union has filed affidavits‑in‑evidence of its witness while the respondent establishment did not lead its evidence. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order, hence, the present appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. Hasan Muhammad, the learned Advocate for the appellant union and Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani, the learned representative on behalf of the respondent establishment, and have also perused the record and proceedings of the case. At the very out‑set Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani has challenged the maintainability of the application under section 34, I.R.O. 1969, before the learned Labour Court and submitted that it cannot take up the cause of workers and it is only competent to file the petition for enforcement of rights guaranteed to it and not to the workers. In this respect a reliance has been placed by Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani on a section of this Tribunal in Appeal No. KAR‑54/34(Messrs Shamsi Cloth & General Mills Ltd. v. Shamsi Cloth & General Mills Ltd. Workers Union) decided on 14‑1‑1980. It was contemplated that only Collective Bargaining Agent of 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 there workman is agitating his own case or the case of other workmen. He can only agitate under section 25‑A, or under section 25‑A(10) of the I.R.0.1969. In the instant case the appellant union has expressed the cause of individual workman and not any right guaranteed or secured to it. Therefore, the present application under section 34 of the I.R.0.1969, filed by the appellant union before the learned Labour Court was not legally maintainable, hence is rejected.

6. For the reasons stated by me above, I see no reasons to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed.

S.Q./1027/Lb.S ??????????

Appeal dismissed.