WORKERS' UNION (REGD.) Versus CRESCENT JUTE PRODUCTS LTD., LYALLPUR
ORDER
This is a petition under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The petitioner is Workers' Union and the respondent is Management of Crescent Jute Products Limited, Jaranwala. It is alleged that a settlement was arrived at between the parties on 12-5-1974 and that some of the terms of the settlement were not complied with. It is prayed that the rights guaranteed or secured to the Workers' Union under the said settlement may be enforced against the employer.
2. The petitioner was resisted by the employer. A legal objection was raised to the effect that the Workers' Union is not C. B. A. and so the petition under section 34 is not maintainable. On the merits of the case it was stated that the employer had complied with all the terms of the settlement.
3. The question is whether the workers Union is C. B. A. The law with respect to C. B. A. is given in section 22 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 Subsection (1) provides that there is only one registered Union in an establishment, that Trade Union shall upon an application made in this behalf be certified by the Registrar to he C. B. A. for such establishment. Subsection (1) provides that where there are more Trade Unions than one in an establishment upon an application made in this behalf by any such Trade Union the Registrar shall hold a secret ballot to determine as to which of the Trade Unions shall be C. B. A.
In the establishment of Crescent Jute Products, there were two Trade Unions in 1970. One was known as Workers' Union and the other was known as Mazdoor Union. A referendum was held on 20-5-1970 in which Workers Union secured 429 votes and the Mazdoor Union secured 4 votes. On the basis of this secret ballot a certificate was issued to the Workers Union that it was the C. B. A. The copy of the certificate is Exh. PA.
5. On 2-8-73 a demand notice was given by the Workers Union which is petitioner in this case. Another demand notice was given by the same Union on 11-4-1975. As the industrial dispute has been raised, therefore, Conciliator took proceedings for conciliation. During these proceedings a necessity arose to ascertain if the Workers' Union was C. B. A. It appears that the Union approached the Registrar to issue a certificate on 9-4-1974. It was certified that there was only one Trade Union in the establishment known as Crescent Jute Products Limited and as it had its members not less than one-third of the total number of the workers, therefore, this Union was declared a C. B. A. and it was deemed to be C. B. A. for the purpose of section 22(1) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The copy of this certificate is Exh. DA. It may be noted that the first certificate Exh. PA was issued under section 22 (3), after holding a referendum whereas the second certificate Exh. DA was issued under section 22 (1) on the assump tion that there was only one Trade Union in the establishment.
6. The plea of the employer is that a new Union in the name of employees Union has been formed in the establishment in December, 1974 or January 1975, therefore it was necessary that any of the two Unions should apply to the Registrar who shall hold a secret ballot and thereafter he shall ascertain as to which of the two Unions can be certified as C. B. A. In my considered opinion the plea has no force. The reason is that the Workers' Union was declared C. B. A. in 1970 vide certificate Exh. P A and it shall hold the same status till it is defeated by any other Trade Union of the same establishment in a referendum, duly held by the Registrar in the prescribed manner. Subsection (10) of section 22 gives a guiding line on this aspect of the matter. It runs: -
Where a registered Trade Union has been certified under clause (e) of subsection (9) to be the Collective Bargaining Agent for an establish ment or group of establishments, no application for the determination of the Collective Bargaining Agent for such establishment or group shall be entertained within a period of two years from the date of such certification except where the registration of such a registered Trade Union is cancelled before the expiration of that period.
7. It is clear from the above provision that a C. B. A., which has been declared as such after a referendum shah et3joy the same status at least for two years and thereafter it shall continue to enjoy the sane status until it is defeated by any other Trade Union. In the present case the Workers Union got the status of C. B. A. in 1970 and this Union cannot be deprived from the said status until it is defeated in a referendum. The argument on behalf of the employer was that another certificate way issued by the Registrar on 9-4-1974, wherein it is stated that there was only one Trade Union and as a new Trade Union was formed subsequently therefore, none of the two Unions was C. B. A. The Registrar cannot annul the status of C. B. A. by issuance of a second certificate. This status of C. B. A. was gained by the Workers Union in a referendum held on 20-5-1970. It is not material if the other Union namely; Mazdoor Union was dissolved or cancelled. If any Union in the name of employees Union has come into field, it cannot deprive the Workers' Union from its status. Neither the Registrar nor the new Trade Union can take back the status which has been achieved by the Workers' Union in 1970 without holding a fresh referendum. For these reasons I hold that the Workers' Union is a C. B. A. and as such the present petition is maintainable.
8. The terms of the settlement dated 12-5-1974 for which the enforcement is claimed in this petition are discussed below ad seriatim Term No. 21 of Demand Notice dated 19-8-1973.-The demand of the Union was that the attendance cards of the workers shall not be taken back so that the workers could use it as a piece of evidence if any necessity arose and that the attendance cards must contain the date of joining of each worker. On this demand the settlement was that action would be taken according to law. The settlement was not very clear. As far as law is concerned Standing Order 2 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 provides that every permanent workman is to be given two tickets, a permanent ticket and a departmental ticket. The permanent ticket besides his name and that of the establishment may or may not contain any entries and the departmental ticket may show only the number of the workmen. All temporary workmen and apprentices are also to be provided with temporary tickets or apprentice cards. Similarly, badli workers are to be provided with Badli Cards which must show the days they have worked in the establishment. The essence of this Standing Order is the provision of tickets and the cards to workman signifying whether they are permanent, probationers, 6adli, temporary or apprentices. They may be helpful for the employer's own record to add other necessary and useful entries on the cards. The law does not force the employers to give other entries also.
9. It appears that the problem of the workers was that they apprehended changes in the record by the employer for his own benefit. They especially wanted that they should also have a brief with them about the date of joining service and the total number of days, they had been working in the Mills. On behalf of the employer it is sated that such cards were being supplied to the workers. I see no difficulty for the employer if the attendance cards showing the fortnightly attendance are allowed to remain with the workers. The dispute is that the employer says that he had been allowing the workers to keep these cards with them, whereas the workers say that they had been taken by the employer and were not returned. The employer is directed to deliver the attendance cards to the workers after every fortnight and must obtain their signatures or thumb-impressions in l~ token of receipt of these cards.
Term No. 22 of Demand Notice dated 19-8-1973.-The demand that the wage slip should be allowed to remain with the workers. This demand was accepted by the employer. As held above about the attendance cards, the employer is directed to deliver wage slips, to the workers and obtain their signatures pr thumb-impressions is token of receipt.
Term No. 47 of Demand Notice dated 19-8-1973.-The demand was that four latrines would be constructed for the workers. This demand was accepted to the extent that one more latrine would be constructed. It is admitted by the employer that the construction had already been started but it has not been completed. The employer is directed to complete the construction within three months of this order.
Demand No. 2 of Demand Notice dated I1-4-1974.-The demand was that the following workers and office-bearers of the Union, who have been suspended from service be re-instated and full wages may be paid for the period of suspension
(1) Amanat Ali, Propaganda Secretary.
(2) Ghulam Muhammad, Member of the Executive.
(3) Bashir Ahmed, President.
(4) Ashiq Hussain Shah, General Secretary.
The parties agreed that the employer shall take a lenient view at the time of deciding their cases. On this point I reproduce the statement of Ashiq Hussain, General Secretary (P. W. 1):
The demand was that four workers namely; Amanat Ali, Ghulam Muhammad, Bashir Ahmed and Ashiq Hussain Shah, who are the officers of the Union, were not guilty of any misconduct and the inquiry by the Management was uncalled for. The Management accepted this demand that lenient view should be taken after the completion of the inquiry. The intention of the parties was that if they were found guilty in the inquiry, some minor penalty would be imposed upon them and no major penalty would be imposed on them such as dismissal. Contrary to this settlement, the Management dismissed Amanat Ali and Ghulam Muhammad. Out of them Ghulam Muhammad has been re-instated by the order of this Court. The case of Amanat Ali is still pending before the Junior Labour Court. Bashir Ahmed and Ashiq Hussain were reinstated but later on Ashiq Hussain was dismissed on some other charge on 2-1-1975. In this way this term has not been complied with. Bashir Ahmed and Ashiq Hussain were not given any wages after their re-instatement. One of our demands is that Bashir Ahmed and Ashiq Hussain may be paid back wages for the intervening period.
All the above workers were officers of the Union. At the time of settlement they were under suspension and inquiry was being held against them. Two of the workers namely; Bashir Ahmed and Ashiq Hussain were found not guilty. They were re-instated but they were not paid full wages for the period of suspension. On the same point Mr. Wasim Ahmed, Labour Officer (D. W. 1) appearing on behalf of employer stated: -
There was condition that the Management will take a lenient view in the cases of suspended persons. They were ten workers and eight of them were re-instated and this was a lenient view. It is correct that half of the wages were given to the workers who were re-instated.
10. The question is what the parties meant by lenient view. I am of the considered view that the intention of the parties was that if a worker was found guilty of misconduct in that case no major penalty such as dismissal would be imposed on him but a minor penalty such as fine or withholding of increments would be imposed. I may add that the following penalties are provided in Standing Order 15:
(1) Fine.
(2) Withholding of increment or promotion for a specified period not N'p"r exceeding one year.
(3) Reduction to a lower post.
(4) Dismissal without payment of any compensation in lieu of notice.
11. The Standing Order does not specify as to which is the minor or which is major penalties but the first two penalties may be termed as minor and the remaining two maybe termed as minor penalties. By the lenient view the intention of the parties was that if a person is found guilty some fine or withholding of increment may be imposed on him. In this case Bashir Ahmed and Ashiq Hussain were not found guilty and so no deduction could be made from their wages for the suspended period. It is an admitted fact that they were paid only half of the wages for the suspended period. The employer is directed to pay their wages for the suspended period at the rate of full wages.
12. Ashiq Hussain was dismissed on some other charge on 2-1-1975. His dismissal cannot be taken into consideration because this action has not been covered under the settlement. It appears that he was duly re-instated after the settlement but later on he was dismissed on some other G charge. As his case is not covered by the settlement no relief can be provided to him.
13. As far as Amanat Ali and Ghulam Muhammad are concerned, they were dismissed from service. The employer was not competent to dismiss them because under the settlement he agreed to take a lenient view and as such he was competent to impose any fine or withholding any increment etc. The dismissal was not proper and it contravened the terms of the settlement. I, therefore, direct that both the workers namely; Amanat Ali and Ghulam Muhammad shall be re-instated and their back wages would be paid to them.
16 Demand No. 3 of Demand Notice dated 11-4-1974.-The demand of the Union was that the charges against the following suspended persons were groundless and so the inquiries against them may be dropped:
(1) Munir Ahmed
(2) Mukhtar Ahmed In fact the names of ten workers
(3) Nazir Ahmed were given butt the cases of the other
(4) Muhammad Bashir four workers have already dealt in
(5) Abdul Ghani term No. 2, therefore, their names
(6) Qammar Abbas have been deleted from the list.
14. The employer agreed that if they were found guilty, a lenient view would be taken against them. It is admitted by both the parties that the above workers were re-instated. The grievance of the Union is that back benefits yr ere not given to them. I am of the view that under the settlement the employer was bound to give them their dues if they wire found not guilty. The employer is directed to give them the back benefits for the suspended period.
Term No. 16 of Demand Notice dated 11-4-1974.-This term related to the Library. It was agreed that the employer would spend Rs. 50 per month on the Library. This term was not pressed and so it is spot enforced.
Term No, 18 of Demand Notice dated 11-4-1974.-The demand of the Union was that sheds be constructed near the gates. The demand was accepted. On behalf of the Union it is stated that the shelter rooms have not so far been constructed. On behalf of the employer it was stated that two shelter rooms for watchmen have already been constructed and the remaining are under construction. It was stated that six masons and sixteen labourers were working on these shelters. The employer is directed to complete this construction within three months of the date of this order.
15. Term No. 19 of Demand Notice dated 11-4-1974.-The demand was that a metalled road should be constructed from Bhatta Gate to Labour Colony. The employer agreed to have soling on the said road. On behalf of the employer it was stated that the roads were under construction. In this behalf the employer is directed to complete the construction in accordance with the settlement within three months of the date of this order.
16. The petition is disposed of in the above terms and the employer shall implement the terms of the settlement in accordance with the directions issued above.
Order accordingly.