1. This is an application under section 25-A of I.R.O., 1969 filed by A. E. G. Employees Union through General Secretary against respondent stating therein that the applicant is registered trade union and Collective Bargaining Agent in respect of the workers employed in the respondent's establishment. That the respondent's establishment is covered by the provisions of Standing Order Ordinance, 1968. That the respondent's management observed two days weekly of from the beginning and the workers employed in the respondent's factory used to get compensatory holidays in place of any holiday which fell on Saturday. This practice was regularly observed in the respondent's factory till June 1984 and, therefore, according to applicant this practice constituted one of the term of employment of the workers of the respondent's factory. That the agreement, dated 13th February, 1975 executed between the management and the Union envisaged a clause whereby it was agreed that the gazetted holidays falling on Saturday should be compensated by announcement a week earlies in consultation with the office-bearers of the Union.
2. That the respondent's management in complete disregard to the rights of the workers for the grant of substituted or compensatory holidays has not granted substituted or compensatory holidays in respect of holidays on 30-6-1984, 8-9-1984 and 6-10-1984 which had fallen on Saturdays.
3. That the workers employed in the respondent's factory became aggrieved on account of infringement of their legal right, approached the applicant union to bring their grievance to the notice of the management. Such a notice was served on respondents and the respondent's management did not redress the said grievance and. Therefore, the applicant union approached this Court under section 25-A of I. R. 0. 1969 to direct the respondent factory to grant substituted or compensatory holidays in respect of gazetted holidays for 30th June, 1984, 8th September, 1984 and 6th October 1984 or in the alternative the respondents may be directed to pay overtime wages to the workers.
4. On the other hand the respondents filed the reply statement and according to respondents the union cannot file the application under section 25-A of I. R.O. In it's own name and, therefore, the present application is not competent and liable to be dismissed. It is further stated by the respondents that petition is not maintainable, as no mandatory grievance notice as required by law is given by individual workers and. Therefore, the present application is liable to be dismissed.
5. According to respondents the application does not disclose the right guaranteed by any law, award or settlement which is violated or infringed. A usage cannot be enforced under section 25-A of I.R.O. 1969. The claim for payment of overtime wages is not maintainable, under section 25-A of I.
6. R.O. 1969.
7. According to respondents by settlement, dated 13th February, 1975 it was agreed that a gazetted holiday falling on Saturday shall be compensated. This right was created under this settlement which was binding till 31st December, 1976 and, thereafter, the terms of settlement became inoperative.
8. The respondents have, therefore, pleaded that this application may be dismissed.
9. The applicant union examined Muhammad Akram, Anwarul Haque Fazalur Rahman, Abdul Waheed, Liaquit Ali, Ghulam Mustafa, Muhammad Iqbal, in support of their case, whereas respondents examined Touseef Ali Khan in support of respondent's case.
10. I have heard the representative for the applicant and Advocate for the respondents and perused the record of the case.
11. The counsel for the respondents urged before me that the present application under section 25-A of I.R.O., 1969 is not maintainable. According to him under section 25-A of I.R.O. The workers can come to the Labour Court individually or collectively and the worker can of course approach the Labour Court through his shop steward, C.B.A. Union or himself. In the present case the union has filed the case itself, through General Secretary.
12. The representative for the applicant on the other hand urged before me that the Union is competent to approach this Court and seek remedy as provided under section 25-A of I. R.O., 1969.
13. I have carefully considered the preliminary objection raised by the respondents.
14. 25-A. Redress of individual Grievance: - (1)A worker may bring his grievance in respect of any right guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law or any award or settlement for the time being inforce to the notice of his employer in writing, either himself or through his Shop Steward or C. B. A within three months of the day on which cause of such grievance arises.
15. (2)Where the worker himself brings his grievance to the notice of the employer, the employer shall, within fifteen days of the grievance being brought to his notice communicate his decision in writing to the worker.
16. (3)Where the worker brings his grievance to the notice of his employer through his Shop Steward or C.B.A. The employer shall, within seven days of grievance being brought to his notice, communicate his decision in writing to the Shop Steward or, as the case may be the C. B. A.
17. (4)If the employer fails to communicate a decision within the period specified in subsection (2) or as the case may be, subsection (3), or if the worker is dissatisfied with such decision the worker or Shop Steward may take the matter to his C. B. A. Or Labour Court or as the case may be, the C.B.A.
18. May take the matter to the Labour Court and where the matter is taken to the Labour Court it shall give a decision within seven days from the date of the matter being brought before it as if such matter were an industrial dispute.
19. Provided that a worker who desires to so take the matter to the Labour Court shall do so within a period of two months from the date of the communication of the employer or as the case may be, from, expiry of the period mentioned in subsection (2) or subsection (3) as the case may be.
(5) In adjudicating and determining a grievance under subsection (4) the Labour Court shall go into all the facts of the case and pass such orders as may be just and proper in the circumstances of the case.
20. According to provisions of section 25-A the worker may bring his grievance in respect of any right guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law, award or settlement for the time being in force to the notice of his employer in writing either by himself or through his Shop Steward or C.B.A.
21. This section is not intended for any Union to approach the) Labour Court in respect of any right guaranteed or secured under any law, award or settlement. The Union has distinct and separate existence and union consist of workers who form the same. Under I.R.O. The union is competent to approach under section 8(3), section 11 A and B, section 14, section 22 EE, section 23 B(10) section 26(1) and section 34, The perusal of the provisions of these sections clearly shows that intention of legislature was that the union was permitted to approach the Labour Court and industrial Labour Commission under specific provisions of I.R.O.
22. It is cardinal principle of law that whenever thing is required to be done in a particular way it should be done as provided by the particular law. The right of an applicant is absolutely different from the right to represent the union. A C. B. A. Union has certainly the right to represent the workers but C.B.A. Cannot be allowed to become applicant or petitioner under section 25-A of I.R.O. This discussion clearly shows that the present application is not maintainable having been filed by the union in respect of workers and the workers have not approached this Court as provided by law.
23. It is also established position of law that every application under section 25-A of I.R.O., 1969 is competent only when a grievance notice to the employer is given by the worker. This grievance notice can be given by the workman himself or through his Shop Steward or through I. C. B. A. The concept of collective grievance notice is alien to the provisions of section 25-A of I. R.O. In this particular case since no individual grievance notice is given and, therefore, the very application having been filed by the union is incompetent and liable to be dismissed.
24. I am satisfied that legally the application is not properly filed by aggrieved workers, therefore, it is hereby dismissed. The application under section 25-A stands dismissed.