DECISION This is an appeal against the order of the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No, V, Karachi, dated 27-9-1986, whereby application under section 34 of the I.R.O., 1969, filed by the appellant was dismissed on the ground that it was not maintainable.
2. I have heard Mr. M.L. Shahani, learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. A. Hafiz, learned counsel for the respondents and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. The point at issue is whether the 'Collective Bargaining Agent could invoke the jurisdiction of Labour Court under section 34 of the I.R.O., 1969, for enforcement of rights guaranteed to workers generally. In the instant case the appellants had filed the application for the enforcement of the rights of workers. The learned Labour Court, relying upon the decision of the Full Bench of the Sindh High Court at Karachi in the case of Karachi Pipe Mills Ltd. v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and 2 others 1984 PLC 1359, held that it could not file application under section 34 for enforcement of right of workman. It is admitted that leave to Appeal against the said order of the Hon'ble High Court has been granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the appeal is pending there. This fact was brought to the notice of my learned predecessor who by order, dated 21-3-1988, adjourned this appeal sine die pending the decision of the Supreme Court. However on 12-3-1989 this Tribunal recalled the previous order and ordered the matter to be heard. Mr. M.L. Shahani has again raised the contention that as the point at issue is pending for decision before the Supreme Court this Tribunal should adjourn the appeal sine die till the decision of the Supreme Court. Mr. A. Hafiz has, however, opposed this motion and contended even after the leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court, this Tribunal has decided five matters basing its decision on the decision of the Sindh High Court.
4. Mr. M.L. Shahani has produced the orders of the Supreme Court granting Stay Order as well as order admitting the appeal.
5. On the application for Stay the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the following order on 10-6-1984:-- "The respondent shall continue to pay overtime dues as are being paid at present, subject, however, that in the event of the petitioners not succeeding in the present petition, the respondent shall be at liberty to adjust the payments so made to the individual workers, from the amount due and payable to them under the Provident Fund and/or Gratuity Fund."
6. The leave to Appeal was, however, granted by order, dated 15-4-1986, whereby Leave to Appeal was granted to consider the following question:- "The question for consideration in this case, inter alia, is whether Collective Bargaining Agent can invoke jurisdiction of a Labour Court under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance for enforcement of right guaranteed to Collective Bargaining Agent alone or does it extend to enforcement of rights guaranteed to workers generally."
7. By consent of the parties the application for suspension of the operation judgment was disposed of on the same terms as were laid down under the order, dated 10-6-1984, which has been reproduced above.
8. The reading of the two orders would show that decision of the Full Bench of the High Court still holds the field but tentatively the respondents were ordered to continue to pay overtime dues, which they could adjust from the payment to the Individual workers, if the petitioners in that appeal did not succeed.
9. The question that requires consideration is whether this Tribunal should stay the decision of instant appeal or other similar appeals, which may arise in future, till the decision of the appeal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court specially when the order of the High Court laying down certain principle has not been specifically suspended. Mr. Shahani admits that in Hon'ble Supreme Court even appeals of 1983 and 1984 have not become ripe for hearing. If that be the position, normally appeal of 1986 would become ripe in 1994. This matter was initiated in the learned Labour Court on 12-1-1984 and six years have already passed. Any further delay, in my opinion, should defeat the ends of justice. Even otherwise, the decision of this Tribunal attains finality though, of course, the parties have right to challenge it in the Constitution petition in the High Court, I, C therefore, hold that this matter should not be adjourned sine die.
10. I have heard Mr. M.L. Shahani and Mr. A. Hafiz on merits of the appeal also. Admittedly the application before the Labour Court was filed by `C.B.A.' for the enforcement of rights of workers, under section 34 of I.R.O., 1969, which may be reproduced as under:- "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."
11. The Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid decision of Karachi Pipe Mills Ltd. v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and others 1984 PLC 1359 held that the `Collective Bargaining Agent' could not enforce the right of individual workman under section 34 of the Ordinance as the word 'it' used in section 34 could not be said that it referred to 'workman' but the `C.BA.' or 'Employer' can apply to Labour Court for any right guaranteed or secured to it or him by or under any law or any award or settlement and not to workman. Their Lordships took into consideration provisions of subsection
(10) of section 25-A under which the workers having common grievance out of common cause of action could make joint application to the Labour Court. As pointed out above this view was followed by this Tribunal in number of cases decided after the decision of the High Court. This view was taken by this Tribunal even in Appeal No, KAR-585 of 1982, decided on 15-12-1982 in the case of Kohinoor Battery Manufacturers Ltd. v. Koninoor Battery Manufacturers Ltd. Mazdoor Union.
12. Mr. M.L. Shahani has relied upon a decision of the learned Division Bench of Peshawar High Court in the case of Habib Bank Limited, Karachi v. N.I.R.C. and others 1988 PLC 18. In that case the maintainability of the application under section 34 with regard to the grievance of individual worker was challenged in the Writ Petition but their Lordships did not allow parties to raise this plea for the first time in the writ petition, when the point was not raised before the N.I.R.C. Furthermore, in this case neither the implication of subsection (10) of section 25-A was considered nor decision of the Full Bench of the Sindh High Court was considered, though case was decided after the decision of the Sindh High Court.
13.Mr. A. Hafiz, learned counsel for the respondents, has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Province of East Pakistan v. Sirajul Haq Patwari PLD 1966 SC 854 wherein their Lordships have observed:-- "A decision by a Bench of three Judges of High Court is, by tradition and practice, invested with the highest authority. It is in the best interest of maintenance of the standing which the High Court possesses, by virtue of the position given to it by the Constitution, and the terms of the Letters Patent under which it functions, as well as its status, in the public eye, as a source of law, that the highest respect should be paid, and should be seen to be paid, by all concerned, to every decision proceeding from the High Court, and most of all the pronouncements on points of law by Benches composed of three or more Judges."
14. In view of the above legal position I find no merits in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed.