SYED AKHTAR NAQI NAQVI (SENIOR MEMBER)--- 1. The petitioner by means of this petition seeks the indulgence of this Bench to direct the respondent to pay all the Commercial Banking Officers (who have been termed as C.B.O's. In the petition), the performance bonus from the date it became due as per practised in the past. The petitioner union contended that it is registered and certified as C.B.A. By the learned Registrar of Industry-wise Trade Unions, NIRC Islamabad and that all the C.B.O's. Are entitled to performance bonus as per the Bank's policy laid down in Miscellaneous Circular No,3183 dated 26th June, 2007 and the respondent management has illegally withheld the bonus of the employees of the U.B.L. Without assigning any reason and they are adopting pressurizing tactics so as to lower the status of the union in the eyes of the workers of the bank. The petitioner union has further contended that the management has further threatened the employees that low performance evaluation shall be made for those employees who involve themselves in litigation with the bank and due to this threat, the employees do not dare to challenge any illegal act of the bank in the Court of law hence this petition filed by the C.B.A. Union and also for directing the respondent to pay performance bonus to the "junior Staff".
2. The respondent contested the petition inter alia on the grounds that the petition is not competent as the petitioner union is an industry-wise trade union the membership of which is confined to the clerical and non-clerical employees of the bank as a list of its members was also submitted by the union along with a list of the office bearers. He contended that all the members and office bearers were clerical and non-clerical cadre of the bank who are workmen by nature of their duties under the I.R.O. Except those who were not workmen but incorporated in the list of members and the matter was agitated and at the time of its hearing the General Secretary and Senior Vice-President of the applying union gave a statement in categorical terms that none of the workers who are members with this union are functioning in the category as officers/employers and in view of this categorical undertaking before the learned Chairman/Registrar of Industry-wise Trade Unions application of the applying union was accepted and registration certificate was issued. It was contended that the petitioner union cannot, therefore, represent the officers/Commercial Banking Officers as in this case. The element of unfair labour practice was not only denied but also it was contended that none of the ingredients of such practice have been alleged or claimed to have been violated by the respondent. It was further contended that performance bonus to C.B.O's. Even otherwise is not a right guaranteed or secured to the CBA and therefore, this petition is not competent. There were certain other objections but they, in the first instance require evidence and secondly they do not go to the root of the petition. The case was fixed for arguments with regard to the aforementioned objections under Order VII, rule 11 C.P.C. That the petitioner union filed an application for amendment/correction/replacement of words "C.B.Os.' with the words "workers". The petitioner union contended that inadvertently in the prayer of the petition the word "C.B.Os." has been written/crept in /typed which is a clerical mistake and need to be rectified and changed by the word workers which is just and necessary for determining the real question in controversy. This application was also resisted by the respondent with a prayer for its dismissal. I heard arguments both on the application for amendment and the main petition in the light of the preliminary objection raised by the respondent in its reply to the petition and have also perused record.
3. The objection regarding jurisdiction of this Commission as raised by the respondent, relates to the status of the beneficiaries of the relief sought. With regard to which no application for amendment in the petition has been filed by the petitioner. The objection raised by the respondents on the point of jurisdiction of this Commission is mainly that relief has been sought for Commercial Banking Officers who fall under the definition of employers and are not covered under the definition of workmen. In this regard the learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on a Full Bench judgment of this Commission reported as 1994 PLC at page 46 wherein it has been held that determination of employee should show that he is a workman and that he has reasonable grounds to entertain apprehension of victimization through labour practice on the part of the employers and an employee who had not even alleged that he is a member of any trade union and has himself stated that he is a member of Banking Association, had to prove that he was a workman. There is no denial of the fact that scheme of the IRO, does not provide for raising of industrial dispute agitating the demand/grievances by the trade unions formed by the employers.
It is equally not agitated by the learned counsel for the petitioner. That is why application for amendment in the main petition has been filed. It has been contended in the application for amendment that "inadvertently in the prayer of the petition the word C.B.Os. Has been written/ crept in/ typed which is a clerical mistake". However, a perusal of the petition in hand would indicate that the use of word "Commercial Banking Officers" is not by way of inadvertence rather in para.No,3 of the same it has been averred that Commercial Banking Officer (C.B.Os.) are entitled to performance bonus as per the bank policy issued vide miscellaneous circular No,3181 dated 26-6- 2007. It was therefore, very much clear in the mind of the petitioner union that it is claiming relief for C.B_Os. Who are apparently not members of a trade union and in this way in the light of the objection raised by the respondents, the amendment if allowed would amount to permitting the petitioner union to improve its case which is not permissible since amendment in the petition can be made only for clerical mistakes but where the objection has been raised on the basis of pleading with regard to the jurisdiction of this Commission, such amendment would cause prejudice to the other side, The better way for the petitioner was to file a fresh petition on behalf of those who can approach this Commission. The application for amendment is therefore, declined and since the main petition relates to a relief for a class of employees who do not fall under the definition of workmen, they cannot approach this Commission and the petition is liable to be dismissed. Order accordingly. File be consigned to record.