1. ' On 21-11-2000 Muhammad IqbalMunshi, (hereinafter referred to as "Munshi"), an employee of Karachi Stock Exchange (Guarantee) Limited, (hereinafter referred to as :"KSE") wrote a letter to the General Manager KSE, alleging it to be a reminder, in the following terms: "I, Muhammad IqbalMunshi son of Muhammad HussainMunshi being member of the Karachi Stock Exchange Employees Union C.B.A. Once again hereby authorize you to kindly debit 1% (one per cent) of the Gross Salary from my monthly salary with effect from 1st August, 1994 towards monthly subscription of the Union and the same paid to the Union.
2. ' This authorization is in accordance with Section 23 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969."
3. ' On 11-12-2000 he sent a reminder to KSE regarding deduction of union subscription from his salary, the last para. Of which reads as follows: "Kindly collect my monthly subscription from my monthlysalary through the check of authorization as I have already authorized the KSE Management in accordance with Section 23 of the I.R.O.
4. 1969."
5. ' KSE did not comply with his request. After submitting a Grievance Notice, Munshi filed an Application under section 25-A read with Section 23, I.R.O. 1969, before Sindh Labour Court No,V Karachi, (Application No,24 of 2001) requesting the Court to direct KSE to deduct his monthly subscription from his monthly salary and pay the same to Karachi Stock Exchange Employees Union (CBA) in accordance with Section 23 I.R.O., 1969. The Sindh Labour Court by Judgment dated 3-7-2002 dismissed the Application holding that the Application in the form filed was not maintainable.
6. ' Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of dismissal, Munshi has filed this Appeal for setting aside the order dated 3-7-2002 passed by the Sindh Labour Court and order KSE to deduct his monthly subscription from his monthly salary and pay the same to the CBA.
7. ' Mr. ShoaunNabi, learned counsel for the Appellant Munshi, vehemently contended that he had filed the Application under section 25-A read with Section 23, I.R.O., before the Labour Court as the General Secretary of the. CBA and, as such, the learned Labour Court was not justified in holding that his Application was not maintainable. He contended that under Section 23 I.R.O., 1969, when an employee requests an employer to make a deduction from the wages of the workman and pay it to the CBA the Employer is bound to comply with the request. To appreciate the argument of Mr. Nabi, it will be appropriate to reproduce here the relevant provisions of section 23, which read as follows: "23. Check-off.---(1) If a collective bargaining agent so requests, the employer of the workmen who are members of a trade union shall deduct from the wages of the workmen such amounts towards their subscription to the funds of the trade union as may be specified with the approval of each individual workman named in the demand statement furnished by the trade union.
(2) An employer making any deductions from the wages under subsection (1) shall, within 15 days of the end of the period for which the deductions have been made, deposit the entire amount so deducted by him in the account of the trade union on whose behalf he has made the deduction.
8. A bare reading of Section 23 clearly indicates that when arequest is made by a CBA to the employer he is bound to deduct the subscription from the salary of the specified workman and within 15 days of the deduction deposit the deducted amount in the account of the Trade Union on whose behalf he has made the deduction.. According to the wordings of the Section it is not the workman but the CBA which has to make the request to the employer to deduct the subscription from the salary of the specified workman who has given such approval. Therefore, an application by a worker to the employer to deduct his subscription would not be proper. It is an admitted position that in the present case the two letters dated 21-11-2000 and 19-12-2000 were written by Munshi in his individual capacity and not as the Secretary of the CBA. The said letters were neither written on the Letter Head of the CBA nor the letters anywhere indicated that the request was being made by the CBA for deduction of the subscription of Munshi from his monthly salary. The request was therefore, not in accordance with the provisions of Section 23, I.R.O. If Munshi wanted any deduction of his monthly subscription from his salary he should have asked any officer of the CBA or written a letter on behalf of the CBA to KSE to deduct his monthly subscription from his salary and deposit the same with the Union. The argument that he was the General Secretary of the CBA which was in the knowledge of KSE is not tenable. It is an established principle of law that when a provision of law requires a thing to be done in a specified manner, it should be done in that manner or not at all. From the reading of the two letters it is obvious that the request was not made by the CBA but by Munshi in his individual capacity and, as such, the Labour Court was justified in dismissing the Application filed by him.
9. ' Mr. Nabi next contended that because Munshi had described himself as the "General Secretary" of the CBA in the title of his application under Section 25-A I.R.O., the learned Labour Court should have overlooked the omission in his letter, considered the contents of the application and granted the relief sought by him. The addition of his designation in the title by Munshi does not change the position because in the initial letter Munshi had not requested KSE on behalf of the CBA to deduct his subscription and this error or requirement of the law could not be rectified or overcome by making the alleged addition. If Munshi wanted his subscription to be deducted from his salary he should have asked the CBA to make such request or written on the letter head of CBA as its Secretary to KSE who would then have been obliged to do so.
10. ' In view of the above, the Appeal has no merit and is accordingly. Dismissed.