' ABDULLAH BALOCH, MEMBER.--- This appeal is directed against the Judgment Dated 14-07-2015 passed by the 1st Labour Court Quetta whereby allowed the petition of the respondents Nos.1 to 10 filed under section 52 read with section 18 and section 32 of Balochistan Industrial Relation Act, 2010.
2. Brief facts arises from the instant appeal are that the respondents Nos.01 to 10 filed a petition before the 1st Labour Court, Quetta with the averments that they are workers of Merck (Pvt.) Ltd.
Quetta i.e, respondent No,11 and member of Merck Employees Union (CBA), according to section 3 of BIRA, 2010, the respondent/petitioners have right and choice to join Trade Union, but the appellants Nos.1 and 2 trying to deprive them from their above said right by keeping them out of the Trade Union affairs, as well as their membership by playing different tactics, which falls within the ambit of unfair labour practice. It is further submitted by the respondents Nos.01 to 10 in their petition that in the year 2014, the appellants announced the election of CBA Trade Union, whereupon the petitioners came to know that their names do not exist in the voters list, being members of the Trade Union. When they came to know that due to non-payment of monthly subscription their names were cancelled, because monthly subscription was not deducted from their salaries on check of system by respondent No,11 at the behest of appellants. It is further submitted by the respondents Nos.1 to 10 that they have approached the appellants for restoration of their membership, as well as deposit of outstanding subscription, but unfortunately the appellants straight away refused to allow the respondents Nos.1 to 10 as member of Merck Employees Union. After refusal of the appellants the respondents Nos.1 to 10 filed an application before the respondents Nos.11 and 12, on receipt of the application, the respondent No,12, i.e, Registrar Trade Union took notice of the matter and constituted a committee to resolve the matter, accordingly vide order dated 21-05-2014, allowed the application of the respondents Nos.1 to 10, subject to deposit of Rs,2400/- each and also allowed the respondents Nos.1 to 10, after deposit of Rs,2400/- to cast their vote in the forth coming elections, the respondents deposited the above said amount and casted their vote in election held in June, 2014. It is further submitted by the respondents Nos.1 to 10 that despite the Orders of Registrar Trade Union and deposit of monthly subscription of lump sum, the appellants did not accepted the membership of the respondents Nos.1 to 40 and did not allowed the respondent No,11 for deduction of monthly subscription from the salaries on check of system, as required under section 32 of BIRA, 2010.
3. The petition was contested by the appellants as well as by the respondents Nos. 11 and 12, on legal as well as factual grounds by means of filing separate written statements. The appellants submitted in their written statement that the respondents Nos.1 to 10 were never member of Merck Employees Union, they have formed a Union in the name and style as "Merck Mehnat Kash Union Quetta" in the year 2009 and they were 46 members of the said union, however during the course of CBA Union elections, they had dissolved their Union and applied for membership of the CBA Union of the appellants and their matter was placed before the Majlis-e-Amla, whereupon with the approval of Majlise-Amla 33 employees were given membership, however membership of the respondents Nos.1 to 10 was rejected by the Majlis-e-Amla. It is further submitted by the appellants that the respondents Nos.1 to 10 working against the interest of Union and not paying regular monthly subscription. It is further submitted by the appellants that the respondents Nos.1 to 10 are not entitled for membership. The respondent No,11 submitted in its Para wise comments that they have no objection if the .Appellants may request for deduction of monthly subscription from the salaries of the respondents Nos.1 to 10. The respondent No,12 neither supported the petition, nor opposed the petition, however admitted the facts.
4. Out of the pleading of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed as many as 3.Issues as under: "ISSUES:-
1. Whether the respondents Nos.1 and 2 being CBA cancelled the membership of the petitioners according to Law?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the relief claimed for?
3. Relief?"
5. After framing the issues, the parties were directed to produce their respective evidence with regard to their claim. The respondents Nos.1 to 10/petitioners in support of their contentions produced two witnesses and also recorded the statement of Power of Attorney. In rebuttal the appellants produced two witnesses and also recorded the statement of appellant No,2. After hearing the arguments of the parties, the Learned Trial Court allowed the petition of the respondents Nos.1 to 10 with the directions to deposit 16 months subscription worth Rs,3200/- each in lump sum, within a period of 15 days. After receipt of the impugned judgment, the appellants are bound to restore the membership of the respondents Nos.1 to 10/petitioners, vide impugned judgment dated 14-07-2015.
6. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid impugned judgment dated 14-07-2015, the appellants filed instant appeal with the prayer, "In view of the above facts, it is therefore respectfully prayed that this Honorable Tribunal may be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 14-07-2015 passed by the learned Labour Court Quetta wherein direction to pay 16 months subscription may also be pleased to increase upto 25 months as outstanding against the respondents Nos.1 to 10."
7. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. Mr. Muhammad Ibrahim Advocate learned counsel for the appellants reiterated the facts mentioned in their written statement and further contended that the Learned Trial Court has taken lenient view, while passing direction for deposit of 16 months subscription at the rate of Rs,200/- per 'month, total Rs,3200/- each member instead of 25 months outstandings. He further contended that in fact the respondents Nos.1 to 10 dissolved their union in the year 2012, hence the membership fee is recoverable w.e.f, July, 2012 onward, which they failed to pay, hence the impugned judgment of the Learned Trial Court is suffering from miscarriage of justice, needs to be modified.
9. Conversely, Mr. Abdul Aziz Lehri Advocate learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 to 10, vehemently opposed the arguments so advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and contended that from very beginning the appellants were not accepted the respondents Nos.1 to 10 as their members despite of the fact that the respondents approached and applied for membership in several occasions, but the appellants were reluctant to issue them membership and accept the subscription. He further contended that the respondents Nos.1 to 10 in compelling position approached the respondents Nos.11 and 12 for redressal of their grievance and the respondent No,12 was pleased to allow the respondents Nos.1 to 10 to deposit Rs,2400/-each as subscription and cast their vote in the election of 2014. He further contended that the respondents Nos.1 to 10 deposited the aforesaid amount and casted their votes in 'the election 2014, hence their membership deemed to be restored in 2014. He further contended that the appellants despite of the depositing subscription, did not issued membership to the respondents Nos.1 to 10 and the respondents approached the Learned Trial Court for restoration of their membership and deposit of monthly subscription, the Learned Trial Court had rightly allowed the petition of the respondents Nos.1 to 10. He further contended that in compliance of the aforesaid judgment, the respondents Nos.1 to 10 approached the appellants for depositing of amount Ordered by the Learned Trial Court i.e, Rs,3200/- each member, but the appellants are reluctant to receive the same. In this regard he placed affidavits of the respondents, advance copy whereof handed over to the counsel for the appellants. He further contended that such non acceptance of the monthly subscription in lump sum as directed by the Learned Trial Court is tantamount to Contempt of Court. .10. Mr. Ali Riaz learned counsel for the respondent No,11 contended that they have no objection if directions given by this Honorable Court for deduction of monthly subscription from the salaries of respondents Nos.1 to 10.
11. Mr. Adnan Saleem representative of respondent No,12 supported the contents of judgment.
12. After hearing the arguments of the parties, I have perused the record and thoroughly examined the documents. The record reveals that the respondents Nos.1 to 10 are admittedly working as workmen (employees) with respondent No,11 for long time however they had formed their own union as Merck (Mehnat Kash Union Quetta) in the year 2009, however in the year 2012, they had dissolved their union and intended to merge with the Merck employees Union (CBA). They had approached the appellants for membership collectively and separately. The appellants allowed membership to 33 persons, but with mala fide intentions did not allow membership to respondents Nos.1 to 10.
13. The record further reveals that the respondents Nos.1 to 10 again and again approached the appellants for issuing membership and deduction of monthly subscription from their salaries, but the appellants' were reluctant to do so, accordingly the respondents Nos.1 to 10 approached the respondent No,12 i.e, Registrar Trade Union for issuance of the membership and deposit of monthly subscription and allowing them for casting votes in the election of CBA Union held in 2014, the respondent No,12 with the consent of the parties allowed respondents Nos.1 to 10 to deposit Rs,2400/- each and cast their votes, accordingly the respondents Nos.1 to 10 deposited the aforesaid monthly subscription and casted their votes, but despite the fact, the appellants did not restored their membership and did not allowed the respondent No,11 to deduct the monthly subscription from their salaries and the respondents Nos.1 to 10 in compelling position approached the Learned 1st Labour Court for redressel of their grievance. It is further transpired from the Para "12" of the impugned judgment that the respondent No, 2 admitted in cross-examination that for the purpose of reconciliation and settlement, the matter was discussed in detail by the respondents Nos.1 to 10/petitioners with appellants out of the Court and agreed for the payment of 16 month subscription Rs,3200/- each as lump sum and the Learned Trial Court passed the impugned judgment in the light of evidence brought on record. During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 to 10 filed affidavits of the some of the respondents that they had approached the appellants to deposit the lump sum amount of Rs,3200/- as directed by the Learned Trial Court, but the appellants were reluctant to receive the same and the appellants have been failed to rebut the contents of the affidavits filed by the respondents, which prima facie seems that the appellant are reluctant to .Comply with and obey the Orders of the Learned Trial Court which is amount to Contempt of Court. The counsel for the appellants has failed to point out any illegality and irregularity in the impugned judgment dated 14-07-2015, passed by the Learned 1st Labour Court Quetta. The learned counsel for the appellants further failed to point out any logic and legal proposition for demand of monthly subscription fee for 25 months, instead of 16 months.
Since the respondents Nos.1 to 10 become as member of the union in the year 2014 and after deposit of Rs,2400/- for the year 2013 and 2014 and Rs,3200/- for the period from 1st July, 2014 to 1st September, 2015 cover the entire period of their membership.
14. In view of the above discussion, I am of the firm view that the impugned judgment dated 14-07- 2015 passed by the 1st Labour Court Quetta does not suffers from any illegality or irregularity, hence need no interference. However the judgment passed by the Learned 1st Labour Court is further modified with the directions to the respondents Nos.1 to 10 to deposit the amount of Rs,3200/- each in compliance of the judgment of Learned Trial Court within a week from the receipt of this judgment in the account of Merck Employees Union and submit the receipt to the appellants, and the appellants are strictly directed that after receipt of deposit slip, issue membership to the respondents Nos.1 to 10 and immediately ask the respondent No,11 to start deduction of monoly subscription from the salaries of respondents Nos.1 to 10. The respondent No,11 is directed to ensure the monthly deduction of the Union subscription from the salaries of the respondents Nos.1 to 10.
15. The respondent No,12 is directed to ensure the compliance of these Judgments to the parties.
With the above modification the impugned judgment dated 14-07-2015 is upheld, hence the appeal being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost.
16. The copy of Judgment along with original record of Trial Court be sent to Trial Court. Case after completion be consigned to record.
17. GIVEN under my hand and seal of the Court on 30th October, 2015.