' This is petition under section 49(4)(e) read with section 63 of the I.R.O., 2002 and Regulation, 32(2)
(c) of the N.I.R.C. (P&F) Regulations, 1973 along with application under Regulation 32(2) of N.I.R.C.
(P&F) Regulations, 1973 supported by affidavit filed by United Bank Limited Officers Welfare Association through its General Secretary against Messrs United Bank Limited and A.V.P./Manager, UBL, Station Road Branch Hyderabad, respondents.
2. The facts of the case as stated in the petition are that thepetitioner-Association is duly registered trade union ofemployers/officers employed in the respondent-Bank. The last change of the office- bearers of the Association elected in March, 2003 has been approve by the Registrar of Trade Unions, Sindh vide his letter, dated 19-5-2003. It is submitted that after the approval of - the change of office-bearers, the petitioner-Association requested the Management of the respondents through letter, dated 26-5-2003 for change of signatures for operating the account of Association maintained in the bank which has not been entertained. Further it is stated that after acceptance of the change the respondents have conspired with some officers/members of the Association and lodged a complaint about non-holding of elections with the Registrar and also have approached the Registrar of TradeUnions to recall the certificate of petitioner-Association. It is submitted that the terms and conditions of service of the members of the Association have been reduced to their disadvantage vide Circular, dated 14-10-2002, letter, dated 17-1-2003 and letter, dated 25-2-2003. It is alleged that respondent No,2 on number of occasions and lastly on 1-9-2003 has pressurized the office-bearers and members of the petitioner-Association to surrender registration certificate and refrain from trade union activities otherwise they will be terminated, removed, dismissed or transferred to far-tlung areas. It is alleged that by way of victimization and unfair labour practice the respondents have seized the account of petitioner-Association. It is prayed to hold that the respondents have committed acts of unfair labour practice and to restrain the respondents from terminating, dismissing removing, punishing or transferring the officer- bearers and members of the Association till disposal of this petition and to direct the respondent to case Bank account which is unlawfully seized.
3. On presentation of the petition on 6-9-2003 my learned predecessor passed ad interim prohibitory order, thereby directing the respondent not to dismiss or terminate any employee/worker of petitioner union as act of unfair labour practice till the next date which continues from date to date.
4. The respondents filed reply statement on main petition andcounter-affidavit on stay application.
In the reply statement the respondent have raised legal objection about maintainability of the main petition and jurisdiction of N.I.R.C. It is submitted that the Officers Association is note covered under the definition of trade union in the I.R.O., 2002 as such it is illegally constituted body. It is denied that the respondents have pressurized the office-bearers and members of petitioner Association. It is also denied that terms and conditions of officers and members of the Association were reduced to their disadvantage. It is submitted that general and bald allegation does not constitute unfair labour practice. It is denied that unfair labour practice is committed or is likely to be committed by the respondents.
5. Affidavit-in-rejoinder has been filed by the General Secretary ofthe petitioner-Association.
6. On 13-1-2004 Mr. Faisal Mahmood Ghani, Advocate for the respondents. Along with statement filed copy of order, dated 22-12-2003 of Honourable High Court of Sindh, Circuit Bench, Hyderabad, whereby the operation of the certificate of registration of the petitioner Association, dated 26-5- 1991 was suspended. On this statement Ch. Latif Saghar, Advocate for the petitioner filed his objections. My learned predecessor heard Advocates of both the parties on the said statement filed by Advocate for the respondents and by order, dated 25-2-2004stayed the proceedings of this petition till final order in the Constitution petition by the Hon'ble High Court of Sindh, Circuit Bench, Hyderabad. The Constitution Petition No, S-364 of 2003 was finally disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court of Sindh, Circuit Bench, Hyderabad by order, dated 6-5-2004, thereby directing the Registrar of Trade Unions, Hyderabad Region, Hyderabad to hear the application for recalling the certificate of registration of United Bank Limited Officers Welfare Association, Hyderabad.
Thereafter the Registrar of Trade Unions, Hyderabad Region, Hyderabad heard the application and disposed of the same by his order, dated 3-6-2004. Consequent to the disposal of the Constitution Petition No,S-364 of 2003 and order passed by the Registrar of Trade Unions, Hyderabad Region, Hyderabad Ch. Latif Saghar, Advocate for the petitioner moved an application for fixing of the hearing of this petition supported by affidavit of General Secretary of the petitioner-Association. Mr. Faisal Mahmood Ghani, Advocate for the respondents filed his objections supported by affidavit of Syed Ali Zafar Rizvi, Vice-President Employees Relations Division, Human Resources Department of the Bank. The hearing of the petition was therefore resumed.
7. I have heard Ch. Latif Saghar, learned. Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Faisal Mahmood Ghani, learned Advocate for the respondents and have gone through the petition, reply statement and documents filed by the parties.
8. Ch. Lartif Saghar, learned Advocate for the petitioner hascontended that the petitioner- Association was registered under the provision of I.R.O., 1969 as definition of 'trade union' under clause (xxvi) of section 2 of 1.R.O., 1969 included the Association of employers. He has contended that under section 80(2)(a) of I.R.Q., 2002 trade union registered under the repealed Ordinance shall be deemed to be registered under I.R.O., 2002, as such the petitioner Association exists. He has contended that since petitioner-Association is registered trade union, and there is no any CBA of the Officers Association in the respondents' establishment as such the United Bank Limited Officers Welfare Association, the petitioner, being registered trade union can perform the function of CBA as recognized by the respondents under section 22 of I.R.O., 2002. It is contended that the respondents have seized the account of petitioner-Association and are pressurizing the office-bearers of the petitioner-Association to surrender the registration certificate and refrain from trade union activities which amounts to an act of unfair labour practice, as such this petition filed by the petitioner-Association, is maintainable and N.I.R.C. Has jurisdiction to deal with it. In support of his contention he has placed his reliance on 1999 PLC 240, 1998 PLC 39, 1997 PLC 92 and 1997 PLC 653.
9. Mr. Faisal Mahmood Ghani, learned Advocate for the respondents has contended that the petitioner is Officers Welfare Association and is not trade union of the workers. It is submitted that under I.R.O., 1969, combination of employers was included in the definition of "trade union" under clause (xxvi) of section 2 I.R.O., 1969, but under the definition of "trade union" clause (xxix) of section 2 of I.R.O., 2002 combination of employers has been excluded from the definition of "trade union" as such the combination of the employers cannot be registered as Trade Union under I.R.O., 2002 and any such trade union of employers association registered will cease to exist . It is contended that the petitioner-Association is not CBA, and cannot espouse the cause of its members. It is contended that has to deal withthe case of unfair labour practice against the employer which is filed by the workman or trade union of the workmen, but since the petitioner-Association is combination of officers/employers and not of the workers, as such it cannot maintain the petition before the N.I.R.C. For alleged acts of unfair labour practice on the part of respondents. In support of his contention he has placed his reliance on order, dated 1-3-1994 of the Full Bench in Appeal No,12(133, 143, 135, 136, 147) of 1992, order of Full Bench, dated 6-6-1996 in Appeal No,12(70)/96, order of Full Bench of N.I.R.C. In the case of Zonal Head, UBL Sadar Zone and another v. Mr. Mubarik Ali Mehboobi reported in 1994 PLC 46, order, dated 24-10-1998 of Full Bench 'of N.I.R.C. In Appeal No,12(72)/98, judgment of Honourable Karachi. High Court in case of Bashir Ahmed y. General Manager, Coordination and others reported in 1997 PLC 246. Mr. Faisal Mahmood Ghani, learned Advocate for the respondents also has contended that in the petition there are general and vague allegations of-unfair labour practice, which without any particular instance of unfair labour practice would not constitute unfair labour practice on the part of the respondents. In support of his contention he has placed his relianceon order of Member, Karachi Bench in case of Rauf Textileand Printing Mills Employees Union and 4 others v. Messrs Rauf Textile and Printing Mills (Pvt.)
Ltd. Reported in 2002 TD (Labour) 341 and also judgment of Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Iftikhar Ahmed and others v. President, National Bank of Pakistan and others reported in PLD 1988 Supreme Court 53.
10. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the Advocates of the parties. The petitioner was registered as Officers Welfare Association under I.R.O., 1969. Under I.R.O., 1969 the definition of "trade union" under clause (xxvi) of section 2 included the combination of employers. However the combination of employers has been excluded from the definition of "trade union" under clause (xxix) of section 2 of I.R.O., 2002. Whether the registration of Officers Welfare As&ociation, the petitioner is protected under section 80(2)(a) of the I.R.O., 2002 as shall be deemed to have been registered under I.R.O., 2002, is being determined by different forums, as such this is not material question in the present petition, required to be determined by this Commission in the present petition. Only the point which requires to be determined in the present petition therefore will be whether the petitioner-Association, which is combination of the officers/employers, can maintain the petition and the present petition before this Commission alleging the acts of unfair labour practice is maintainable. The prayer in the petition is as contained under section 63(1)(d) of I.R.O., 2002, which can only be sought by the workman or the registered trade union of the workmen having status of CBA and not by the registered United Bank Limited Officers Welfare Association, the petitioner, which is combination of officers/employers. Section 49(4)(e) of I.R.O., 2002 also enunciates that N.I.R.C. Can deal with the cases of unfair labour practice against the employer, when it is filed by the workmen or the trade union of workmen which is CBA as specified in section 63 of I.R.O., 2002.
11. In Appeals 133, 134, 135, 136 and 147 of 1992 (unreported) in case of the Habib Bank Officers Welfare Association, Habib Bank Ltd. Officers Federation, United Bank Officers Federation and National Bank of Pakistan Officers Federation in order, dated 1-3-1993, Full Bench of National Industrial Relations Commission held that the Scheme of I.R.O., 1969 does not provide for raising of industrial dispute, agitating the demands/grievances by the Trade Union formed by the employers.
The entire Scheme of I.R.O. Shows that it has been not been designed to meet with the situation created by the disputes between various categories of employers. It was observed by the Commission in Case No,4A(963)/9l-L General Secretary Sui Northern Professional Engineers Associations, Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd. Sargodha Road Faisalabad, v. Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd., through its Managing Director and others that "the I.R.O. Does not provide any machinery for resolution of disputes between different executive cadres. True that the registration Trade Union of employers is permissible under the I.R.O., 1969, but the Statute is addressed to the resolution of differences between the employers and workers and does not provide any machinery for settling the differences between employers and different executive cadres, whose terms and conditions are governed by the law of contract". While reaching this conclusion guidance was sought from a case titled Pakistan Tobacco Company Ltd. v. Pakistan Tobacco Company Employees, Union, Dacca and 2 others (PLD 1961 SC page 403).
Further in order, dated 1-3-1993 in abovesaid appeals Full Bench. Of National Industrial Relations Commission observed that it is well-settled that the terms and conditions of the persons falling outside the purview of labour laws are, normally governed by the simple rule of `Master and Servant' unless there are Statutory rules governing suchterms and conditions. It does not appeal to human reason that persons belonging to the categories of employers, whose service conditions are thus at the discretion of the Master, were intended to get allowance of protection of unfair labour practice under section 15 of I.R.O., 1969. Further it was observed that the definition of Employer as given in clause (viii) of section 2 of the I.R.O., 1969 clearly brings the officers of the Banks within that definition. It will, therefore, be disruptive of the basic postulates of the law of Industrial Relations to introduce another class of non-workers as workers and give them the status of workers as far as the law of unfair labour practice is concerned.
12. In case of Zonal Head, UBL Saddar Zone and another v. Mr. Mubarik Ali Mehboobi reported in 1994 PLC 46 Full Bench of National Industrial Relations Commission at page 48 observed that in a petition under clause(g) of subsection (98) of section 22A, I.R.O., 1969 by a worker it is necessary that the petitioner should show that he is a worker and further that he has reasonable grounds to entertain an apprehension of victimization through unfair labour practice on the part of the employer. Therefore, it was held that the petition under section 22-A(8)(g) of I.R.O., 1969 filed by the Bank Manager, who is member of Bank Officers Association and is not member of trade union, would not be maintainable.
13. In Appeal No,12(70)/96 Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation v. Pakistan Steel Officers Association and another, Full Bench of National Industrial Relations Commission in order, dated 6-6-1996 (unreported) observed that section 15 of I.R.O., 1969 envisages unfair labour practice on the part of employer to be those unfair labour practices, which an employer commits as against his workmen or prospective workmen and not against other employees employed by him. It was observed that Officers Associations are the associations of employers and not workmen. Thus the petition by an employer against the employer praying that a prohibitory order be issued against the employer for his apprehended act of unfair labour practice is neither maintainable under section 25-A nor under section 34 or under section 22-A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969.
For the aforesaid reasons and the case-law cited above I am of considered view that the petition filed by the Officers Welfare Association, is not maintainable, hence it is dismissed. The interim prohibitory order, dated 6-9-2003 passed by my learned predecessor is recalled.