' The appeal captioned above arises from the decision, dated 10th April, 1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 3, Lahore at Ferozewala, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant union for direction to pay arrears of bonus for the years 1975, 1976 and 1977 to workmen, was dismissed.
2. The dispute is not about the entitlement to bonus. Bonus was paid for the periods mentioned above but the dispute is about its calculation. While calculating the bonus, house rent allowance, conveyance allowance, medical allowance, heat allowance, loading allowance and cost of living allowance were not included in the wages. The petition under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was made but on account of a ruling of this Tribunal, the petition was withdrawn and after service of grievance notice, dated 18th August, 1982, a fresh grievance notice was given on 15th January, 1983 on the ground that negotiations had failed and the grievance petition under section 25-A was lodged on 2nd February, 1983. The grievance petition has been dismissed by the learned lower Court as time-barred.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has on the point of limitation cited 1979 PLC 107, 1979 PLC 179 and 1980 PLC 316. The rulings are not relevant to the case. It has been observed that a C. B. A. Can bring a grievance petition for any collective right of workers under section 34. The word 'it' used in section 34 has been interpreted in 1980 PLC 316 to be for the collective rights of the workers. Before section 34 was amended, a word 'workman' was contained in this section and was deleted when section 25-A was inserted. The intention of the Legislature is to be seen. If the intention of the Legislature bad been that individual workers may bring the dispute under section 34, the word 'workman' would not have been deleted, nor section 25-A had been inserted in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. It has also been observed that .- "The spirit underlying the institution of collective bargaining agents is affording of facility to the workmen to have their disputes settled collectively and through a legally recognised agency so that they may not suffer from the unnecessary trouble of making individual applications in such matters in which more than 50 workmen are involved."
This has said with reference to section 22(12) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 that authorises the C. B. A. To represent workers in any proceedings. Firstly, there is no trouble for more than 50 workers to come under section 25-A because according to subsection (10) they can make a joint application where they have common grievance. Secondly, even under section 25-A they are entitled to bring their dispute to the Labour Courts through their C. B. A. So far as section 22(12) is concerned, it does not mean to say that C. B. A. Can bring an action in the Court under section 34 for the workers. A C. B. A. Can represent the workers in the proceedings. No proceedings can be deemed to have started unless a dispute has been brought to the Court. Instituting a case is quite different from representing in the proceedings. "Represent, workers in a proceeding" does not include to institute a case. Of course, if a case has already been brought and entertained by the Court, C. B. A. May represent in it the workers. Certain legal mandatory formalities are to be observed by the workers before bringing the dispute to the Court. They are given in section 25-A.
These formalities being mandatory cannot be by-passed by invoking the provisions of section 34 that was purposely made in application to the workers by deleting the word 'workman'. I, therefore, most respectfully differ from the observations made in the above, mentioned rulings.
4. It has been argued that when wrong legal advice of a lawyer has been followed by a party, the delay can be condoned. Reliance has been placed in this respect upon PLD 1974 SC 22 and 1978 PLC 319. Even if it be said that under the wrong advice of a lawyer petition under section 34 was brought, there is no satisfactory explanation for bringing the grievance petition beyond 2 (1/2) months of the service of grievance notice. Grievance notice was given on 18th August, 1982 but grievance petition was lodged on 2nd February, 1983. It is said that discussion upon the question of bonus started after the service of grievance notice, dated 18th August, 1982 and that when it was realised that delaying tactics were being made, another grievance notice was given on 15th January, 1983. No second grievance notice is provided in section 25-A. In reply to application for condonation of delay, the plea that after the service of firs grievance notice, discussion over the question of bonus started, was categorically denied. Even if it be assumed that the matter came under discussion, it was not just and proper to let period of limitation, meant for bringing the grievance petition, to run down. The cause of grievance had already started and there being no new cause of grievance, the second grievance notice is not recognised by law. The petition, therefore, has been rightly dismissed by the learned lower Court as time-barred.
5. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.