' This appeal arises from the decision dated 15th June, 1978 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent Union was accepted and the appellant was directed to pay the workers of the said Union minimum wages as allowed to the workers of the factories situated in Zone 'A'.
2. There are two Zones 'A' and `B' and the rate of wages allowed to the workers working in the factories situated in Zone 'A' is greater than the wages allowed to the workers of the factories situated in Zone 'B'. The respondent Union brought an application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, claiming that the appellant factory was situated in Zone 'A', therefore, the workers were entitled to the wages according to the rate of Zone 'A'. The application was contested by the appellant. According to which the factory was situated in Zone 'B'. According to the notification Exh. P-2, the factories situated in the Municipal and Cantonment limits of Faisalabad were in Zone 'A'. It is, therefore, to be seen whether the appellant factory is situated within the Municipal limits of Faisalabad. Admittedly, the Municipal boundaries of Jaranwala and Faisalabad adjoin. The parties did not produce Municipal record of Faisalabad and Jaranwala, nor examined the concerned official of the two Municipalities. Only from the Municipal record it could be shown whether the appellant factory is situated within the Municipal limits of Faisalabad or Jaranwala. Mr. Tariq Hashmi, General Secretary, was examined on behalf of the respondent, but he did not say whether the appellant factory situated within the Municipal limits of Faisalabad. On behalf of the appellant Mr. Mahboob Khan, Personnel Officer (RW-1) was examined. He in cross- examination said "the respondent mills is situated within the Municipal limits. The other fertilizer factory is also situated in Jaranwala town". This portion of cross-examination of Mr. Mahboob Khan shows that the appellant factory as well as and other fertilizer factory stated by him, both are situated 'in Jaranwala town. The word 'also' used by him in the sentence the other fertilizer factory is also situated in Jaranwala clearly shows that what he stated in the opening sentence of his cross-examination means that the appellant factory is situated within the Municipal limits of Jaranwala. If in the second sentence the word 'also' had not been used, it could be said that the opening sentence of his cross-examination could not show that according to him, the appellant mills was situated within the Municipal limits of Jaranwala. Since always a town is situated within the Municipal limits, therefore, Jaranwala town must be situated within the Municipal limits-of Jaranwala. Since the appellant factory, according to the statement of this witness, which does not stand rebutted, is situated within the Municipal limits of Jaranwala, it is in zone 'B' and thus the respondent could not claim wages according to the rate allowed to the workers of the factories situated in Zone 'A'.
3. The respondent C.B.A. Union was not entitled to make application for the workers under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Section 34 entitles the C.B.A. To make application to the Labour Court for the enforcement of any right guaranteed or secured to it and not to the workers. The section reads as under :- "Any Collective Bargaining Agent or any employer may apply to the Labour Court for the enforcement of any right guaranteed or secured to it or him, by or under any law, or any award, or settlement."
' Section 34 was amended by Act XXIX of 1973, whereby the words 'or workman' occurring in between the words 'employer' and 'may' were omitted. It is thus clear that before the, amendment, under section 34 a workman could make an application himself. It is thus clear that before the amendment, the intention of the law was that a workman may also make an application under section 34 himself but not through any C.B.A. If the intention of the Legislature had been from the beginning that a Collective Bargaining Agent can make an application for the benefit of its workers also, then before the amendment of 1973, the word 'workman' would not have been used in the section. Since section 25-A had been inserted in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 in' 1972 by Ordinance XXIX, therefore, the word 'workman' from section 34 by the amending Act. Of 1973 was omitted. Thus, the petition under section 34 made by the Collective Bargaining Agent was not competent.
4. As a result of the observations made above, I accept the appeal ' and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned Labour Court, dismiss the grievance petition of the respondent Union given under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.