' Employees Union, Public Health Engineering, (Registered), Rahimyarkhan, through its President, Jandwada and Mutahida Labour Federation (Registered) through its General Secretary, Haji Naseer-ud-Din, the petitioners have made a joint application under sections 34, 34-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1%9, raising an industrial dispute. The relief claimed, precisely, is that Ghulam Akbar and others (workmen) as per list appended with main petition are permanent employees of respondent No, 1 and entitled to receive back benefits etc. Arising thereof.
2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this application in short are that Ghulam Akbar and others (56 in numbers), had been employed with respondent No, 1 as Tubewell Drivers, Chowkidars, Plumbers and Baildars etc. For more than 9 months. It is contended further that the work assigned to them was of a permanent nature. They had become permanent workmen by virtue of S.O. 1 of West Pakistan Industrial & Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
Ordinance No, VI of 1968. The petitioners, therefore, have come to this Court for the enforcement of the said right guaranteed/secured to them under law.
3. This petition has been vehemently contested by the respondents. The main contention of respondents, is that the applicants had no cause of action nor said petition had been maintainable in law. It was further alleged that respondent No, 1 conducted operational functions of the Water Supply and Disposal works of respondent No, 2 and No,
3. The said workmen therefore, were the members of contingency staff.
4. The parties were called upon to substantiate their respective contentions. The applicants have examined Ghulam Akbar (P.W. 1) one of the workmen, who reiterated the facts set out in the petition. In the cross-examination, he denied that he was not a permanent workman. Documents Exh. P.1 to Exh. P. 12 were also tendered.
5. In rebuttal, three witnesses have been examined apart from the documents Exh. R. 1 to Exh. R.
19. Detailed arguments have been addressed. I have perused the record of the case with care.
6. From the very outset, I proceed to examine and consider the legal objection raised by respondents in order to appreciate the said legal objection. In its true perspective, the bare provisions of section 34 of I.R.O. 1969, are reproduced below:- "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."
7. It is crystal clear, from the said provisions, that C.BA. May apply to the Labour Court for the enforcement of any right guaranteed or secured to it by or under any law or any award or settlement. This means that a petition under section 34 of the I.R.O. 1969 is maintainable only when a right guaranteed or secured to C.BA. Is sought to be enforced. There is no evidence on record pointing to such a right. A careful perusal of the contents of the main application would indicate that there is no allegation that any such right had been guaranteed or secured to petitioner, (C.BA.) rather it tends to advance the personal cause of Akbar Ali and others. The right claimed is certainly a right of an individual. I am, therefore, convinced that section 34 of I.R.O. 1969, cannot be pressed into service for the enforcement of an individual right. Such an application therefore aiming at espousing cause of individual workmen is not competent in law. The said provisions, therefore, did not confer any right on C.BA. To take up the individual cause of workman before a Labour Court. The present application therefore, under section 34 of I.R.O. 1969, does not disclose any cause of action nor the same is maintainable.
8. As far petitioner No, 2 is concerned, the Federation can seek remedy by way of raising an industrial dispute, if any, before the Commission. Attention is invited to the provisions of section 34- A which are reproduced below for advantage:- "Notwithstanding anything contained in this Ordinance a federation of industry wise trade Unions or a federation at the national level may, if it is a Collective Bargaining Agent raise an industrial dispute affecting all employers or workers of the establishments represented by that federation and a decision of the Commission shall be binding on all such employers and workers."
9. In view of what has been said above, without dilating on merits of the case, it is found that this application does not disclose any cause of action nor is legally competent. The legal objection raised by the respondents is therefore, upheld. Resultantly, this petition is hereby dismissed.