1. ' ALI MUHAMMAD BALOCH (MEMBER).--- This revision application is directed against the order of learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No,VI at Hyderabad, passed on 15-1-2011 by which learned Labour Court dismissed the application under section 151, C.P.C. Filed by the establishment of informant/applicant before learned Labour Court with the following prayer:--- "In view of the above it is respectfully prayed that this honorable Court may be pleased to restrain/debar the representative from representing the Indus Jute Mills Ltd. People Workers Union purported appellant from the above case."
2. ' The facts of filing the above referred application was that the respondent # 1 union had filed an appeal under section 13(b) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2008 by which the present respondent # 1 had challenged the order of Registrar of Trade Unions passed on 12-2-2009 by which the respondent # 2/R.T.U. Had cancelled the registration of respondent # 1 union which according to the respondent # 2/R.T.U., respondent # 1 has found to be registered in violation of subsection (3) of section 30 of I.R.A.
3. 2008.
4. ' The basic question involved in this revision application is, whether the said union who had filed appeal before learned Labour Court at Hyderabad can be represented by Mr. Rana Mehmood Ali Khan being the Representative of respondent # 1 on the plea that that section 49 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 permission is required for the representing through legal petitioner and the same provision also provides that the worker may be represented through officer of any collective bargaining agent of a registered trade union. The same wordings have been adopted by the Industrial Relations Ordinance/Act, 2002, 2008 and 2010 which are contained in section 49 of the I.R.O., 1969. For ready reference Section 68 of the I.R.A. 2008/2010 is reproduced hereunder:--- "68. Representation of parties.--- (1) A Workman who is a party to an industrial dispute shall be entitled to be represented in any proceedings under this Act by an officer of a collective bargaining agent and subject to the provisions of subsection (2) and subsection (3) any employer who is a party to an industrial dispute shall be entitled to be represented in any such proceedings by a person duly authorized by him.
(2) No party to an industrial dispute shall be entitled to berepresented by a legal practitioner in any conciliation proceedings under this Act.
(3) A party to an industrial dispute may be represented by a legal practitioner in any proceedings before the Labour Court, or before an Arbitrator, with the permission of the Court or the Arbitrator, as the case may be."
5. ' The interpretation of section 49 of I.R.O. 1969 and 43 I.R.O. 2002 has been made by the Courts time and again. This question has also come and raised before this Tribunal earlier in 1999 and 2000 and has been decided in favour of the Representative in order to provide assistance to the poor workers. I feel that it is the management who time and again agitating the same issue just in order to linger-on the proceedings pending before Labour Courts and I would like to depreciate the said practice of raising the same question again and again. Learned Counsel for respondent # 1 has cited the case-laws and here I first draw the attention of the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of Lahore, High Court, in the case of SHER MUHAMMAD v. CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL COURT OF WEST PAKISTAN AND OTHERS, as reported in 1967 PLC 147. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced Hereunder:--- "It is obvious that this inherent right of a person to appear and represent through his duly authorized agent in any proceedings cannot be taken away except by a clear provision in the Ordinance to the contrary."
6. ' Second is the judgment passed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal as reported in 1986 PLC 978 AHMED KHAN v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION through Chairman and 2 others and the third is 2000 PLC 438 In re: REPRESENTATION OF A WORKER an order of Mr. Justice (R) Dr. Tanzirul Rehman the Ex- Chairman of Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, as announced on 20th October, 1999 in a suo motu cognizance.
7. ' 1982 PLC 1100 GHULAM MUHAMMAD KHAN ETC. v. SABIR JAVED "S.49(3)---Representation of workmen through Labour Representatives---Unquestionable, S.49(2)---Representation of workmen through CBA---Workman may be represented through office-holder of CBA other than CBA of establishment in which workman is or was employed---There is no restriction that office- holder of only CBA in establishment can represent workman."
8. ' In an unreported case - SUIT NO.277 of 1974 - SHARAF FARIDI and 2 OTHERS v. M.A. SHAHANI and 7 OTHERS, decided on 2-10-1995 by the Hon'ble Division Bench of High Court of Sindh Karachi consisting upon Mr. Justice Shafi Muhammedi and Mr. Justice Deedar Hussain Shah, JJ. Relevant pares-7 of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:--- "7. For the reasons discussed by me above I have no hesitation in dismissing this suit by answering issue No,(i) in the negative by holding that although acting, appearing and pleading on behalf of various parties amounts to practicing the profession of law yet defendants are entitled to appear before the Labour Court/Labour Appellate Tribunal/N.I.R.C. Etc. To deal with the cases of labourers/workmen on account of special provisions in the I.R.O: relating to proceedings before such, courts because special provision introduced in the I.R.O. Override the general provisions contained in the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973. Further strength, in this regard, can be sought from the case reported as SYFD MUHAMMED HUSSAIN v. PAKISTAN TOBACO COMPANY (PLD 1980 SC 80) and KARACHI UNION OF EMPLOYEES AND OTHERS v. INDUSTRIAL COURT, KARACHI (PLD 1961 SC 57)."
9. ' In view of the above citations nothing left for discussion.
10. ' The citations submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant/ informant though may be searched out by him after hectic efforts, but the judgments as reported in NLR 2004. Labour 43 - ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD. ETC. v. RAFIQUE AHMED SOOMRO was in respect of the representation through an advocate hence not applicable in the present proceeding. Another case as reported in 1996 PLC 311 Messrs RAMZAN ALI & CO. COTTON GINNING AND PRESSING FACTORY, MIRPURKHAS v.
11. GENERAL SECRETARY, EMPLOYEES UNION and another is also in respect of representing through an advocate, so also the same is not applicable in the present case, 2010 PLC 48 - Messrs. COCA COLA BEVERAGE PAKISTAN LIMITED through Authorized Officer/Industrial Relations Manager v. REGISTRAR TRADE UNIONS SINDH and 3 others is in respect of representation but in respect of definition of a workman, especially after his dismissal, therefore, the same is also not applicable to the present case.
12. ' As I have noted earlier that some Counsel/Representatives are in practice of raising the objections which were earlier settled, hence in my view the copy of the order be sent to the General Secretary of Industrial Relations Advisors Association for communication to its members, so unwarranted objections and proceedings be curtailed in future. Copy of this order may also be sent to all the Presiding Officers of Sindh Labour Courts for their information and record.
13. In view of above legal position, the revision application is hereby dismissed with the direction to the learned. Labour Court to proceed and decide the matter/appeal on merits within a period of thirty days. It is pertinent to note here that in the matter of registration of union or its cancellation, employer or any other, union has no right to be heard, therefore, the learned Labour Court is directed to proceed with the matter immediately without Interference of any other party in this regard reliance is made on 1999 PLC 263 - Messrs. PLASTICRAFTERS (PVT.) LIMITED v. REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS.