1. This application purports to have been instituted in the present Court under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, .1969. It has been instituted jointly by the West Pakistan Road Transport Workers' Union (Regd.), Rawalpindi and by Muhammad Yousuf Chughtai, formerly a Store Keeper employed by the Government Transport Service, Rawalpindi, which is under the administrative control of the respondent No.1, I.e. the Road Transport Corporation, Lahore. In this application it has been stated that the petitioner No. 1, i.e. the West Pakistan Road Transport Workers' Union (Regd.), Rawalpindi, is a bargaining agent of the employees of the Government Transport Service, Rawalpindi, and Islamabad Omnibus Service, Rawalpindi, under section 22 (1) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. It has further been stated that the petitioner No. 2 Muhammad Yousuf Chughtai was a member of the West Pakistan Road Transport Workers' Union (Regd.), Rawalpindi. According to the application Muhammad Yousuf Chughtai had been demoted to the post of a Store-keeper on the date 3-10-1969 and was working in that capacity when ha was dismissed from service on the date 4-10-1969. On the date 29-11-1968 Muhammad Yousuf Chughtai received a copy of an official communication sent by the Secretary of the Road Transport Corporation,. Lahore, to the Regional Manager, Government Transport Service, Peshawar, in which the petitioner No. 2 Muhammad Yousaf Chughtai was called upon, to explain; certain irregularities imputed to " him. He thereupon submitted a reply on the date 112-10-1968 in which he denied the fact that he had committed any irregularity and disclaimed responsibility for any improper Act.
2. Subsequently op tile date 20-1-69 a charge-sheet bearing the signature of Mr. Salah-ud-Din Qureshi, Chairman Road Transport Corpora-- ion, Lahore, was issued to Muhammad Yousaf Chughtai in which it had been alleged that he had by making some bogus entries purchased some spare parts, thereby inflicting loss upon the respondent department. On the date 27-1-1969 Muhammad Yousaf Chaughtai submitted his reply to the charge-sheet and addressed it to the Chairman of the Road Transport Corporation, Lahore. In that reply he again disclaimed responsibility for any sort of misconduct or negligence. The Director Northern Zone Road Transport Corporation, Rawalpindi, then drew up some documents by way of holding an enquiry, never the less he never recorded the statement of any witness in the presence of Muhammad Yousaf Chughtai. On the date 19-8-1969 the Director Stores Purchase of the Road Transport Corporation, who was a subordinate of the Chairman Road Transport Corporation, issued a show-cause notice over his own signatures to Muhammad Yousuf Chughtai. In that notice it was indicated that as a result of a departmental enquiry Muhammad Yousaf Chughtai had been found guilty of the charges against him, hence he was called upon to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. Muhammad Yousaf Chughtai gave reply to that notice on the date 25-8-1969 in which he set forth arguments intended to prove his own innocence. Eventually on the date 4-10- 1969, the Director (Stores Purchase) Road Transport Corporation, Lahore, passed an order whereby he dismissed Muhammad Yousaf Chughtai from service. The aggrieved workman filed an appeal against the order of dismissal on the date 15-1-1970 before the Chairman of the Road Transport Corporation, Lahore, which was dismissed by the Chairman and the Member (Finance) of that Corporation on the date 22-1-1970. Muhammad Yousuf Chughtai then submitted an application praying for the review of the appellate order. This application was addressed to the Government of West Pakistan, which is reported to be considering it. According to the application the request of Muhammad Yousuf Chughtai for being supplied with copies of certain documents was turned down by the respondent. It has also been complained in the application that before being dismissed from service Muhammad Yousaf Chughtai was not afforded any opportunity of adducing his evidence in accordance with the provisions of clause (4) of Standing Order No. 15 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. On all the above-mentioned grounds and on other grounds mentioned in the application, which it is unnecessary to reproduce here, it has been prayed that the respondent might be ordered to re- instate the petitioner Muhammad Yousaf Chughtai in service.
3. A reply was filed on behalf of the respondent to the applica--tion under consideration. In that reply it was contended that the application was not maintainable under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 inasmuch as the petitioner Muhammad Yousaf Chughtai had not been deprived of any specific right but had been dismissed on proved charges of misconduct, after he had been afforded a full opportunity of defending himself and after all the requisite forma--lities and the requirements of natural justice had been fully observed. It was further argued that although a collective bargaining agent was competent to raise an industrial dispute nevertheless the dismissal of an individual workman did not fall within the definition of an industrial dispute, hence the petitioner No.1 i.e. the West Pakistan Road Transport Workers' Union. Rawalpindi, could not invoke the jurisdiction of this Labour Court under section 34 of the Industrial Relations ordinance, 1969. It was further submitted on behalf of the respondent that Muhammad Yousuf Chughtai was a head store-keeper at the time of his dismissal, hence he could not be considered to belong to the category of workmen, particularly when it was fact that the post of head store-keeper was of a supervisory nature and only the departmental rules are applicable to it. The respondent also asserted that the petitioner No. .2 Muhammad Yousuf Chughtai was present when the statements of witnesses were recorded by the departmental enquiry officer. It was emphasized by the respondent that Muhammad Yousuf Chughtai was not only responsible for disregard of the rules and the procedure of the Road Transport Corporation but also for making fictitious entries in a statement relating to the purchases of spare-parts and for providing undue benefits to the supplier and inflicting loss on the Road Transport Corpora--tion. For all these reasons the respondent prayed for the dismissal of the application under consideration.
4. I have heard the arguments of the respective representatives of the two contending parties and have examined the relevant record minutely. As the application under consideration purports to have been filed in this Court under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, it would be rewarding to reproduce here its exact provisions, which are as follows:- "34. Application to Labour Court.-Any party to an industrial dispute relating to a matter arising out of any right guaranteed or secured to an employer or workman by or under any law for time being in force or an award or settlement may apply to the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute."
5. The main question for determination in this case is whether or not the case of the dismissal of Muhammad Yousaf Chughtai, petitioner No. 2, can be deemed to be an industrial dispute calling for adjudication by this Labour Court. The expression `industrial dispute' has been defined as follows in section 2 (xiii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969:- "industrial dispute" means any dispute or difference between employers and employers or between employers and workmen or between workmen and workmen which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or the conditions of work of any person."
6. It is essential to bear in mind that the case of the dismissal' of any individual workman on a charge of misconduct cannot reasonably or legally be treated as being a dispute or difference between the employers and workmen which is connected with) the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or the conditions of work of any person. If such dismissal has been ordered by any employer in accordance with any depart--mental rules or regulations then there is no legal warrant for regarding it as constituting an industrial dispute requiring adjudication by a Labour Court. The terms `employment' and 'non-employment' that occur in the above-cited definition of an 'industrial dispute' cannot by any stretch of the imagination be believed to include the dismissal of any individual workman on a charge of misconduct.- Quite apart from the above-mentioned considerations I deem it essential to state in this context that the petitioners and their representatives have failed to convince me that the petitioner No. 2 Muhammad Yousuf Chughtai, who was serving as a store-keeper under the respondent, i.e. the Road Transport Corporation, Lahore, at the time when his employment was terminated under the authority of the respondent was in fact a 'workman' within the definition of that term set-out in section 2 (xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. It is abundantly clear from the contents of the application under consideration that the petitioner was not dismissed or otherwise removed from his employment in connection with or as a consequence of any industrial dispute.
7. On the other hand section 43 of the INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ORDINANCE, 1969, contains the following mandatory provisions:-- "43. Raising of industrial disputes.-No industrial dispute shall be deemed to exist unless it has been raised in the prescribed manner by a collective bargaining agent."
8. The procedure for raising industrial disputes has been prescribed explicitly in sections 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. In view of the express provisions of these sections of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, it is, in my judgment, abundantly clear that the petitioner No. 1, i.e. the West Pakistan Road Transport Workers' Union (Regd.), Rawalpindi, which claims to be a collective bargaining agent in this case, has not raised any industrial dispute in the prescribed manner in regard to the dismissal of Muhammad Yousaf Chughtai, ex-Store keeper. As a matter of fact I am not- inclined to lend any credence to the contention of the petitioners representative that the petitioner No. 1 viz. the West Pakistan Road Transport Workers' Union (Regd.), Rawalpindi, is a proper collective bargain--ing agent in the present case. The expression 'collective bargaining agent' has been defined in the' below-cited terms in section 2 (v) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969:- "collective bargaining agent", in relation to an establishment or industry, means the Trade Union of workmen which, under section 22, is the agent of the workmen in the establishment or, as the case may be, industry in the matter of collective bargaining."
9. At this stage it is illuminating as well as instructive to refer to the fact that the term `collective bargaining' has been authoritatively defined in section 2 (iv) of the same Ordinance so as to mean "negotiation with a view to arriving at a collective agreement". Furthermore, the expression `collective agreement' has been defined in section (2) (iii) of that very, Ordinance in the following words:- "collective agreement" means an agreement in writing relating to the terms of employment and conditions of work of workmen employed in an establishment or industry which is arrived at between the employee of such workmen and a collective bargaining agent."
10. In the face of all the above-mentioned facts and the above-cited provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, there can be no doubt whatsoever that the petitioner No. 1, which has avowed itself to be a collective bargaining agent in the present case never conducted any negotia--tions with the respondents i.e. the Road Transport Corporation, with a view to arriving at any collective agreement in writing in regard to the terms of employment of the petitioner No. 2 Muhammad Yousuf Chughtai, ex-Store-keeper. Indeed, no dispute has arisen in regard to, his terms of employment and the petitioner No. 2 cannot legally be regarded as being a workman at all. I~ any case since no industrial dispute has been raised in the prescribed manner by any collective bargaining R agent in regard to the termination of the employment of the petitioner No. 2 Muhammad Yousaf Chughtai, therefore, in view of the provisions of section 43 pf the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, no such dispute can be deemed by me to have existed at all in the case under consideration. This being the true position of the matter neither the petitioner No.1 nor the petitioner No.2 can legally be treated as being a party to any industrial dispute requiring adjudication by this Labour Court.
11. For all the above-recorded reasons, this application for the re--instatement of the petitioner No. 2 Muhammad Yousuf Chughtai is dismissed.