EMPLOYEES UNION C.B.A. Versus STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN

This is an appeal directed against the decision dated 20‑11‑1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.l, Lahore, whereby the petition brought by the appellant union under section 34, of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for a direction to respondent No.l to deduct and pay subscription of the members of the appellant union to it by cheque off system was dismissed.

2. The facts of the case are that previously respondent No.2 union was the C.B.A. and the subscription from its members was being deducted and paid to it by cheque off system. In the last referendum respondent No.2 union ceased to remain C. B. A. and the appellant union became C.B.A. The appellant union asked respondent No.l not to deduct any credit to the account of respondent No.2 union the subscription of its members but respondent No.l did not accede to it. The appellant union then approached the Registrar who directed respondent No.l in that behalf but to no‑purpose and thus the appellant union brought the grievance petition referred to above. The rule of cheque off is contained in section 23 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. According to this section, if a C.B.A. requests the employer for the deduction of subscription from the wages of the workers and to credit the same to the account of the trade union of which members they are, the employer has to get the approval of the worker concerned, to make the deductions. Section 23 does not say that every month a request will be made for the deduction of subscription. If once such a request is made and the deduction of subscription is started it would continue. There is no provision that the deduction can be stopped if the C.B.A. asks for it. The law, therefore, is‑ that when once the deduction is started it can be stopped only if the workman concerned requests the employed not to do so or to credit the subscription not in the accounts of the C.B.A. in whose account previously it was being credited and to credit the same in the account of some different union. Since the deduction of subscription of the members of respondent No.2 was started when the said union was C.B.A. the deductions started legally and unless the workers concerned from whose wages deduction is being made, ask the employer not to do so, the employer is obliged to continue to make the deduction. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that as soon as respondent No. 2 union ceased to remain C.B.A. the employer should have stopped deduction of the subscription, from the members of the said union, has no force, This argument has also no force that since the Registrar had directed respondent No.l to stop the deduction, the said respondent should have stopped it. The learned counsel has failed to show any provision of law under which the Registrar has authority to issue such a direction. The petition, therefore, has been rightly disallowed by the learned lower Court

3. As a result, there is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed.

A.E. /490/Lb.P ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.