DECISION ' These are two appeals by the Karachi Transport Corporation Workers Union, which have been heard together at the request of the parties as they involve common issues. Appeal No,KAR-154 of 1980 is directed against the decision of the learned Second Labour Court, given on 29-1-1980, dismissing the application filed by the appellant union under section 34, I.R.O., for grant of the National Pay Scales to the employees of the respondent Corporation with effect from 1-3-1972; while Appeal No,209 of 1980 is directed against the decision of the learned Second Labour Court, given on 19-2-1980, dismissing the appellant union's application under section 34, I.R.O. For direction to the respondent union to grant bonus to its employees for the year, 1976-77. This order will dispose of both the appeals.
2. In Appeal No,KAR-154 of 1980 the case of the appellant union is that the Government had introduced the National Pay Scales with effect from 1-3-1972 and had forwarded copies of these scales and the scheme to the autonomous bodies, including the S.R.T.C., for implementation, vide its circular letter, dated 20-4-1972. The S.R.T.C., however, introduced these scales w,e,f, 1-7-1973 and not from 1-3-1972. The appellant union, therefore, claims that the employees of the K.T.C., who were taken over from the S.R.T.C. In February, 1977, when the K.T.C. Came into existence and took over functions of the S.R.T.C. In Karachi, should be paid their wages for the period from 1-3-1972 upto 30- 6-1972 according to the National Pay Scales.
3. As regards Appeal No,209 of 1980 the case of the appellant union is that by a settlement, dated 27-12-1969, the West Pakistan Road Transport Corporation of which the S.R.T.C. And the K.T.C. Are the successors entered into settlement according to which it had to pay bonus to its employees but notwithstanding the said settlement the K.T.C. Had failed to pay bonus for the period 1976 to 1977 to its employees most of them are previous employees of S.R.T.C.
4. The learned Labour Court dismissed the claim of the appellant union for the enforcement of the National Pay Scales w,e,f, 1-3-1972 on the grounds, firstly that the Karachi Transport Corporation came into existence with effect from 1-2-1977 and there is no evidence to show that it was either the successor-in-interest or was responsible for the liabilities of the S.R.T.C., secondly, that the appellant union had failed to establish that it was its right under any law or rule to claim National Pay Scales with effect from 1-3-1972 and that lastly the application was hopelessly belated.
5. As regards Appeal No,209 of 1980 the application of the appellant union was dismissed by the learned Labour Court on the grounds, firstly, that the application being for the enforcement of the rights of the workers was not maintainable under section 34, I.R.O., as held by the learned Single Judge of the Karachi High Court in the decision reported in PLD 1979 Kar. 473, secondly, that the application was further not maintainable as Muhammad Rafiq, who had filed the same was not the General Secretary of the appellant union at the time that he filed the application on 3-6-1978, thirdly, that the Karachi Transport Corporation was not the successor-in-interest of the S.R.T.C.
Under whom the workmen were employed for the major part of the year, 1976-1977, and lastly that the settlement under which the bonus had been claimed had not been established as even a copy of the same had not been produced.
6. I have heard Mr. Wasi Ahmad, who appeared for the appellant union in both the cases, Mr. Sirajul Haq Qureshi who appeared for the K.T.C. In the two appeals, and Mr. A.Q. Khalil, who appeared for the S.R.T.C. In Appeal No,KAR154 of 1980. It may be pointed out that the S.R.T.C. Is not a party to Appeal No,KAR-209 of 1980.
7. Mr. Wasi Ahmed submitted three grounds in support of his argument that K.T.C. Is liable to pay to those of its employees who were previously working with the S.R.T.C. The difference between the wages actually received by them and the National Pay Scales for the period from 1-3-1972 to 30-6- 1973, namely:-
(a) that the workers employed by the K.T.C., in February, 1977, when it came into existence were mainly the workers of S.R.T.C. Which ceased to operate in Karachi from the above month;
(b) that the appellant union was certified as C.B.A. In 1977 and before that it was not even in existence; and
(c) that the circular letter of the Government dated 20-4-1972, was binding upon the K.T.C. As successor of the S.R.T.C.
8. On the other hand, Mr.Sirajul Haq, on behalf of the K.T.C., supported the impugned decision of the learned Labour Court dismissing the claim of the appellant union for National Pay Scales on the grounds:-
(a) that the application was belated and was hit by laches;
(b) that there was no violation of law or rule by the K.T.C. And hence the application under section 34 was not maintainable; and
(c) that there .Was no evidence that the K.T.C. Was successor of the S.R.T.C.
9. I will first deal with the contentions of Mr.Wasi Ahmed and thereafter examine the objection raised by Mr.Sirajul Haq. As regards Mr. A.Q. Khalil he almost entirely relied upon the statement of Mr.Wasi Ahmed that the appellant union was making no claim against the S.R.T.C. And had made it a formal party being predecessor of K.T.C. Now the mere fact that most of the workers recruited or employed by the K.T.C. Were the former employees of S.R.T.C. Cannot possibly be construed as establishing or even indicating that the K.T.C. Undertook the liabilities of the S.R.T.C. In respect of its employees or it was the successor of the S.R.T.C. In fact it was admitted by Muhammad Rafiq, the General Secretary of the appellant union in his evidence before the learned Labour Court, that he could not produce any document according to which the K.T.C. Had taken over the liabilities of the S.R.T.C. On the other hand it was specifically asserted by Brig. Qasim, the Managing Director of the K.T.C. In his affidavit before the learned Labour Court, that the K.T.C. Was not the successor or was responsible for the liabilities of the S.R.T.C. The only evidence which the appellant union could adduce in support of its contention that the K.T.C. Was responsible for the outstanding dues of the employees which it had taken over from the S.R.T.C. Is the letter of appointment of one Ansar Ahmed who was taken up as a Conductor in the K.T.C. With effect from 11-2-1977. Although this letter states that he is being taken on the same terms and conditions as during the period of the Sind Road Transport Corporation, the letter goes on to state that he would be governed by the rules and regulations as adopted, framed and amended from time to time by the Karachi Transport Corporation. The letter, thus, does not in any way indicate that the K.T.C. Had taken over any responsibility of the S.R.T.C. Or is liable to pay to the former employees of the S.R.T.C. Any amount due to them for the period they were employed with the S.R.T.C. Or before the K.T.C. Came into existence.
10. I have not been able to appreciate how the next contention of Mr.Wasi Ahmed, namely, that the appellant union was certified as C.BA. Of the K.T.C. Only in 1977, supports the claim of the appellant union in regard to payment of National Pay Scales to the workers for the period from 1-2-1972 to 30-6-1977 except perhaps that having been constituted in 1977 it could not possibly agitate the claim before it was constituted. The objection nevertheless remains that the claim was made at a belated stage and suffers from laches. Since the claim pertains to 1972-1973, it was made some five to six years after it is said to have been due. It was observed by this Tribunal in the case of Conforce Ltd. v. Ghulam Hussain 1975 PLC 272 that though section 34 of the I.R.O. Does not prescribe any time limit for an application to be made thereunder yet such an application must be made within a reasonable time and what is reasonable time in a particular case would be dependant upon the circumstances of each case. In the reported case the application which was made after a delay of one year without accounting the reasons for the delay was held to be barred by laches. In the instant case, as already indicated, the application has been made some five to six years after the cause of action arose and no reasons have been given for preferring the claim after the lapse of such a long period. The mere fact that the appellant union came into existence in 1977 is insufficient to explain this delay. The claim could have been made much earlier either by the workers themselves or by the C.B.A. In the S.R.T.C. I am, therefore, of the view that the present application is hopelessly belated and is barred by laches.
11. I also find force in the next contention of Mr.Sirajul Haq that the claim of the appellant union is not based on any law or rule. Mr.Wasi Ahmad was unable to refer me to any law, rule, award or settlement requiring either the K.T.C. Or the S.R.T.C. To make the National Pay Scales applicable to its employees w,e,f, 1-2-1972. The said scales were originally made applicable only to Government servants. The mere fact that a copy of the said scales was sent by the Government under its circular letter dated 20-4-1972, to various offices including perhaps the S.R.T.C., does not lead to the inference that the S.R.T.C. Was directed to enforce those scales. The fact that S.R.T.C. Enforced the said scales with effect from 1-7-1973 and that too by a Resolution of the Corporation shows that there was no direction of the Government to the Corporation to enforce these scales of pay, much less from any particular date. As such there appears to be no right guaranteed to the workmen even of the S.R.T.C. Under any law or rule for the grant of the National Pay Scales for the period earlier than 1-7-1973, when the S.R.T.C. Adopted these scales. Since an application under section 34, I.R.O., can only be maintained if it is for the enforcement of any right guaranteed or secured under any law or any award or settlement and since no such right has been established the application is clearly misconceived and is not maintainable.
12. I will now proceed to deal with Appeal No,209 of 1980 which raised the claim of bonus for the years 1976-1977. The first ground on which the learned Labour Court has rejected this application is based on the decision of a learned Single Judge of the Karachi High Court in the case of Sindh Alkalis Ltd., Karachi v. Workers' Union PLD 1979 Karachi 473, where it has been held that the C.B.A.
Under section 34, I.R.O., can only enforce rights guaranteed to it and cannot espouse the rights of workmen. However, there is a later D.B. Decision of the Karachi High Court reported as Iqbal Ahmad v. Second Sindh Labour Court 1980 PLC 316, wherein a different view has been taken. In that case it was observed as follows:- "An application under section 34 of the I.R.O. Can be made by a Collective Bargaining Agent for the enforcement of any right guaranteed or secured under any law or any award or settlement.
Mr.Fazle Ghani Khan has, however, contended that the words 'secured to it' and 'any right guaranteed or secured to it.' as they appear in section 34 of the I.R.O. Refer to employer or the rights of the Collective Bargaining Agency as distinct from the rights of the "workmen". Such interpretation is fallacious as the same completely overlooks the provision of section 22 as also the underlying spirit of the institution of Collective Bargaining Agency. The word 'it' in section 34 of the I.R.O.
Denotes collective rights of the workmen as are enforceable by the agency of the Collective Bargaining Agent within the meaning of subsection (12) of section 22 of the I.R.O. We have no difficulty in repelling the, .
13. A similar view has been taken by a learned Single Judge of the Karachi High Court in an earlier case reported in PLD 1979 Kar. 189, and by this Tribunal in the case of New Jubilee Insurance Employees Union v. New Jubilee Insurance Co. Ltd., decided on 2-4-1980.
14. There are, however, other grounds on which the impugned order of the learned Labour Court can rightly be sustained. In the first place, the bonus is claimed on the basis of a settlement which is said to have been executed in 1969. However, neither a copy of that Settlement has been produced nor it is known for what period the Settlement was to remain in force. All that has been produced by the appellant union is a decision of a learned Labour Court given on 21-2-1972, referring to the said Settlement and on its basis directing bonus to be paid to the employees of the S.R.T.C. For the year 1970-1971. It is, however, not known on what conditions the bonus was payable and whether it was payable to permanent workmen only or temporary employees were also entitled to receive the bonus and further whether bonus was payable to these employees who had worked for a part of the year only. It is an admitted position that the K.T.C. Was established on 1-2- 1977. Thus, it was in operation for only four months of the period for which the bonus was claimed. It is also not known whether under the terms of the settlement the bonus was payable whether there was profit or loss. According to the evidence of the Managing Director of the K.T.C. Before learned Labour Court, the K.T.C. Suffered huge losses during the period from 1-2-1977 upto 30-6-1977. The Union, thus has failed to make out any claim for payment of bonus on the basis of the alleged settlement of 1969. Finally, it may be pointed out that this Settlement was not with the K.T.C. But with the predecessor of the S.R.T.C. There is nothing on the record to show that the K.T.C. Has bound itself by the terms of that Settlement.
15. For the foregoing reasons, I find no ground to interfere with the two impugned orders of the learned Labour Court and, accordingly, would uphold the same and dismiss both the appeals.