' As above captioned two revisions arise from the orders dated 6th, 1979 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court 2, Lahore, whereby the objection of the petitioners that Mr. Hammed Anwar Lodhi, representative of the respondents, could not ear and represent them was disallowed. Since the point involved in two revisions is the same, they are being decided through this single judgment.
2. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that according to section 49 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, only an office-holder of C.B.A. Can represent a workman and since Mr. Muhammad Anwar Lodhi is not an office-holder in any C.B.A., he is not entitled to represent the persons for whom be appeared before the Labour court. On the other hand, the argument of Mr. Lodhi is that he was patent to represent his clients particularly when he had already filed a special power of attorney executed by his clients in his favour. Since the question involved affects many other labour representatives, who usually appear before the Labour Courts and this Tribunal, they were invited to argue the matter and besides Mr. Lodhi, Mr. Nazir Ahmed Naz has also argued in answer to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Muhammad Anwar Lodhi and Mr. Nazir Ahmed Naz have relied upon 1967 PLC 147, 1977 PLC 587 and PLD 1968 Lah.
269. Before surveying the above-mentioned authorities it is necessary to consider section 49 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. This section says that a workman who is a party to an industrial dispute, shall be entitled to be represented in any proceedings under this Ordinance by an officer of a C.B.A. The remaining portion of this section is not relevant to this case. According to the provisions of the said section, a workman who is represented by an officer of C.B.A. Should be a party to an industrial dispute. Since the words 'shall be entitled' are used in this section, it shows that its provisions are permissive and not restrictive. So far as the representation by an officer of the C.B.A. Concerned, it is the right of the workman to be represented by such officer, but as there is no restriction that such a workman cannot be represented by any other person, this section does not exclude other persons from representing the workers before the Labour Courts. Where the intention law is to impose any restriction, a specific provision is made to that net. Subsection (2) of section 49, specifically restricts the representation a legal practitioner in conciliation proceedings whereas subsection (3) How's such a representation before the Labour Court with the permission the said Court of before the Arbitrator with the permission of the said hority. It is nowhere provided in section 49 that the workman would be entitled to engage any other person of his choice to represent him a Labour Court as it has been restricted in subsection (2) with regard he representation by a legal practitioner only.
3. The next question to be considered is whether only are office the C.B.A. Of the establishment in which the workman is or employed, can represent him or the office-holder of any other C.B. A. Also be engaged. My view is that there is no restriction that office-holds of only that C.B.A. In the establishment can represent the workman w' was or is employed in the said establishment. The reason is that be' the word 'officer' article 'an' and before the words 'collective barge. Agent' article `a' have been used. If the intention of the Legislature he been different, in place of the words 'an' and 'a' the word "fly,' won have been used and after the words 'collective bargaining agent words 'in the establishment where the workman is employed' won't have been added. So far as the authorities cited by Mr. Muhammad Anwar Lodhi are concerned, they support his arguments. Lea' counsel for the respondent has not been able to cite any authority to contrary. {{PAGE CUT}} Although no arguments have been advanced in respect of the words 'an industrial dispute' used in section 49 are concerned yet the matter needs clarification. According to section 49, the work concerned should be a party to an industrial dispute. Accordit_ .0 section 2 (xiii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, industrial dispute means any dispute or difference between employer and empl or between employer and wokmen or between workman and wok' which is concerned with the employment or non-employment, or the ti of employment, or the conditions of work of any person and is not in respect of the enforcement of any right guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law other than this Ordinance or any award or settlement for the time being in force. As the grievance petitions in which the question under discussion arose the right asserted flows from Rail Ay R es . s a e a ions et. Inane, ".
It renm.y o .1 puce. u subsection of Section 25-A provides that the Labour Court shall give a deci,ion within seven days from the date of the matter being brought before it as if s matt r were an industrial diste. Since the controversy broi 2.Ht before t about. Court underection 25-A is to be decided as if it were an industrial dispute, for the purpose of section 49 also such a controti can be treated as an industrial dispute although otherwise it is not coy e efinition. As a result of the observations made above, I dismiss both ate revisions, The cases be sent back for decision on merits. {{PAGE CUT}} revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.