MUHAMMAD SHAFI Versus REGIONAL MANAGER, AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN
Appellant No.l is the President of Employees Union of Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan which is a registered union, whereas appellant No.2 is the General Secretary of the said union.
2. Brief facts are that a dispute arose between employees and employer of Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan and a Charter of Demands under section 26(1) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the "IRO") was submitted on 22-4-1990 through appellants. It is the case of the appellants that they were threatened with dire consequences and were forced to withdraw the same.
3. In order to resolve the Industrial Dispute between the Employer and Employees a show-cause notice was issued to appellant No.2 on 12-6-1990 to which a detailed reply was submitted. Ultimately the appellants gave a notice to the Director Labour Welfare, Balochistan under section 28 of the I.R.O. On 6th of December, 1990 the Director Labour Welfare ordered for conciliation proceedings between the parties. It is the case of the appellants that during the conciliation proceedings the respondents' threatened appellant No.2 for dismissal from service, therefore, a complaint under section 15(d) and (f) of the I.R.O. was filed before Presiding Officer Labour Court. Alongwith the complaint an interim application was also filed wherein it was requested that respondents be restrained from taking action of dismissing the appellant No .2 from service. Learned Presiding Officer restrained the respondents from dismissing the appellant No.2 from service. But despite that appellant No.2 was removed from service resultantly a contempt application was filed but at this stage the jurisdiction of the Presiding Officer was challenged.
4. After hearing the parties learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court dismissed the complaint vide order, dated 20-5-1991 for want of jurisdiction. Hence this appeal.
5. Heard Syed Ayaz Zahoor, Advocate for appellants and Mr. H. Shakeel Ahmad, Advocate for respondents.
6. According to Mr. Ayaz Zahoor the Labour Court had jurisdiction to entertain a case of unfair labour practice because it has got concurrent jurisdiction with N.I.R.C. He relied on the case of National Bank of Pakistan v. Muhammad Bakhsh as reported in 1989 PLC 135.
7. On the other hand Mr. Shakeel Ahmad, Advocate strenuously urged that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction in the matter and trial of offences relating to unfair labour practice is within the exclusive jurisdiction of National Industrial Relations Commission. He, therefore, stated that the impugned judgment is sustainable in law.
8. In order to resolve the issue the facts are to be seen in the light of relevant provisions of I.R.O. Facts being that in November, 1990 a complaint under section 15(d) and (f) of the I.R.O. was filed by the appellants. The appellant No.l being President of a Registered Union of Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan is also Collective Bargaining Agent of Quetta Balochistan. A dispute had arisen between the employees and employer where a charter of demands purported to be made under section 26(1) of the I.R.O. was submitted on 22-4-1990. It contains as many as 30 demands. It is alleged that management threatened the union and office-bearers to withdraw the charter of demand so show-cause notice was issued to the General Secretary i.e. Appellant No.2. However, no action was taken on the charter of demands. It was the case of appellants that Director Labour was requested to intervene into the matter and to resolve the dispute. By dint of charter of demands appellants were threatened that they would be dismissed, hence they filed the aforesaid complaint. The prayer clause of which is very important for the settlement of issue in hand, thus the same is reproduced:--
"It is accordingly respectfully prayed that an action as contemplated under section 15(D) and (F) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 may kindly be initiated against respondents and they be penalised in accordance with law in the interest of justice."
In the light of the aforesaid facts we have to see the relevant law to determine the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. Section 15(d) and (e) of the I.R.O. are t,crel)y reproduced:-_
"15. Unfair labour practices on the part of employers:--
(1) . ..............................................
(a) ......................................
(b) .
(c) ..
(d) dismiss, discharge, remove; from employment or transfer or threaten to dismiss, discharge or remove from employment or transfer a workman or injure or threaten to injure him in respect of his employment by reason that the workman:--
(i) is or proposes to become, or seeks to persuade any other person to become, a member or officer of a trade union, or
(ii) participates in the promotion, formation or activities of a trade union.
(e) induces any person to refrain from becoming, or to cease to be a member or officer of a trade union, by conferring or offering to confer any advantage on, or by procuring or offering to procure any advantage for such person or any other person.
( f) ..
(g) .
(h) .............................
(i) ..
(j) .
(2) .
Thus, the alleged facts prima facie indicate that it was a case of unfair labour practice on the part of the employer.
9. As far as jurisdiction of Labour Court regarding trial of offences is concerned we have to take resort to section 64 of I.R.O. which reads as under:--
"64. Trial of offences .---Save as provided in this Ordinance no Court other than a Labour Court or that of a Magistrate of the First Class shall try any offence punishable under this Ordinance."
From bare perusal of the aforesaid section it is transpired that there is a clog on the jurisdiction of the Labour Court and of a Magistrate of 1st Class and it is that their jurisdiction is subject to the other pro6sions of the Ordinance. Other provisions for the purpose of dispute in hand are sections 22-A and 35(5)(c) of I.R.O. Section 22-A(8)(f) and (g), therefore, these are hereby reproduced:--
"22-A. National Industrial Relations Commission: --(1) ...........
(2) .....................................................
(3) .....................................................
(4) .....................................................
(5) .....................................................
(6) .....................................................
(7) .....................................................
(8) The following shall be the functions of the Commission, namely:--
(a) .....................................................
(b) .....................................................
(c) .....................................................
(d) .....................................................
(e) .....................................................
(f) to try offences of unfair labour practices punishable under:--
(i) section 53, other than subsections (1) and (5) thereof; and
(ii) any other section, in so far as they relate to employers or workers in relation to an industry-wise trade union, federation of such trade unions, a federation at the national level or officers of such union or federation:
(g) to deal with cases of unfair labour practices specified in sections 15 and 16 on the part of employers, workmen, trade unions of either of them or persons acting on behalf of any of them whether committed individually or collectively in the manner laid down under section 25-A or section 34 or in such other way as may be prescribed and to take, in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations under section 22-F, measures calculated to prevent an employer or workman from committing an unfair labour practice;
(h) .....................................................
(i) .................................................. .
(9) ............................ ...................
(a) .....................................................
(b) .....................................................
(10) .....................................................
(10-a) .
(11) ................................
(12)
Similarly section 35(5)(c) reads as under:--
"35. Labour Court: --(1) .
(2) ..
(3) ..
(5) A Labour Court shall:--
(a)
(b) .....................................................
(c) try offences under this Ordinance and such other offences under any other law, as the Provincial Government may, by notification, in the official Gazette, specify in this behalf.
(d) .. "
Thus, simultaneously there are three sections i.e. sections 35. 64 and 22-A providing forums for trial of offences including unfair labour practices. Besides, section 22-A(12) provides that nothing in this section shall be deemed to exclude the jurisdiction of a Labour Court to entertain cases of unfair labour practices on the part of employers or workmen, whether individually or collectively. Provided that no Court, including a Labour Court, shall take any action or entertain any application or proceedings in respect of a case of unfair labour practice which is being dealt with by the Commission.
10. The penal section of the I.R.O. in this regard is section 53. Section 53(1-A) provides punishment for contravention of sections 15 and 53(2) prescribes punishment for violation of section 16. However, we are at present concerned with jurisdiction of the Labour Court to try offences regarding unfair labour practice. The same is section 53(6) which for the sake of convenience is hereby reproduced:--
53. Penalty for unfair labour practices:
(1) ..
(1-a) ....................................................
(2) ....................................................
(3)....................................................
(4) ....................................................
(5) .......................
(6) Nothing in this Ordinance shall be deemed to exclude the jurisdiction of a Junior Labour Court or the Court of a Magistrate to try a case under this section if it is authorised to do so by a general or special order of the Commission.
(7) ....................................................
11. Thus, apparently sections 35, 64, 22-A(12) and 53(6) seem to be contradictory providing simultaneously different forums i.e. National Industrial Relations Commission, Labour Court or Magistrate of 1st Class for trying offences including unfair labour practices. But from minute perusal of all these sections there appears to be no contradiction. In section 22-A(8)(h) we find connotations like industry-wise trade unions and Federation of such trade unions at national level etc. Furthermore, a duty is cast upon Court to make all efforts to bring in harmony different sections of a statute which ex facie appear to be inconsistent. In doing so one rinds that in fact the Commission is empowered to deal with cases as well as trial of offences for contravention of sections relating to unfair labour practices regarding industry-wise trade unions at national level where establishments extend to more than one Province or of federation of trade unions whose membership extends in more than one provinces. On the other hand the Labour Court has got jurisdiction to try offences and deal with cases in respect of those employers and trade unions which are at the provincial level alone. This interpretation, if adopted, shall bring in harmony all the sections regarding jurisdiction to deal with cases as well as try offences pertaining to unfair labour practices. Section 53(6) shall also be effective and shall not be redundant by this interpretation because in eventualities where only one of the trade unions of a respective Province feels aggrieved then he may bring his grievances or a complaint for taking action before the respective Labour Court provided the Commission has authorised it to take action. Thus, it is the Commission which has got jurisdiction in respect of offences regarding unfair labour practice if the industry is national wide or the registered trade unions are at national level. Simultaneously the Labour Court has the same jurisdiction in respect of all establishments and trade unions at the provincial level as well as it has jurisdiction if so authorised by the Commission in respect of all those establishments and trade unions, which are at national level. But the Labour Court shall not try any offences regarding illegal labour practice in respect of an establishment or trade union which is a country-wide or national wide establishment or union unless so authorised by the Commission. In the instant case it is admitted that Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan is an establishment at the national level. Furthermore, the trade union of the employees of ADBP exists throughout Pakistan. It is, therefore, the NIRC which is the proper legal forum for trying offences relating to unfair labour practices. The Labour Court at Quetta could also try such cases only if it was so authorised by the Commission. Since nothing has been brought on record that the Commission has so authorised the Labour Court at Quetta, therefore, it had no jurisdiction to try contravention of section 15(d) and (f) of I.R.O. This is exactly what has been held in the i A impugned order by the Labour Court. 1, therefore, find no defect in the impugned order. The appeal having no force thus fails and is hereby dismissed as such with no order as to costs.
H.B.T./32/Sr. Appeal dismissed.