DECISION This is an appeal against an award of the learned Presiding Officer of Sind Labour Court No. V, Karachi, dated July l2, 1973, whereby the learned Labour Court dismissed the application of the National Bank of Pakistan Employees* Front (hereinafter called the appellant Union), filed under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called the Ordinance). The learned Labour Court dismissed the application of the appellant Union on two grounds, namely :--
(1) That the Constitution Petition is pending in the High Court challenging the status of the appellant Union as Collective Bargaining Agent and that the High Court has been pleased to grant a stay order in respect of the referendum to be held between the appellant Union and the National Bank of Pakistan Staff Union (hereinafter called the Staff Union) ; and (2) That the appellant Union cannot espouse the cause of an individual workman. I propose to dispose of these points separately.
2. Mr. Ali Amjad, the learned Advocate for the appellant Union, contended that the appellant Union was declared by the Registrar of Trade Unions, Karachi, to be the Collective Bargaining Agent by its Certificate dated 7th October 1970. No other Union has been declared as Collective Bargaining Agent so far. It is true, the Staff Union has applied for holding a referendum but the same has not so far been held. Mr. Ali Amjad relied on section 52 of the Ordinance in support of his contention that so long as another Collective Bargaining Agent has not been declared the rights of the appellant Union to perform its functions, which the Ordinance permits it, are not debarred. Section 52 of the Ordinance reads as under :-- "Any act or function which is by this Ordinance required to be performed by or has been conferred upon a Collective Bargaining Agent may, until a Collective Bargaining Agent has been ascertained under the provisions of this Ordinance be performed by a Registered Trade Union which has been recognised by the employer or employers."
3. Mr. Ali Amjad contended that section 22 and section 52 of the Ordinance must be so read together that the object of the Ordinance is not frustrated. The object of the Ordinance is not that a right, which has been conferred upon a Collective Bargaining Agent, may remain in abeyance to the detriment of its workers till another Collective Bargaining Agent has been declared. There is much force in the contention of Mr. Ali Amjad. Mr.l Shaukat Ali Nanji, the learned Representative for the respondent, contended]/* that in order that the Union may claim the benefit conferred by section 52 ofl the Ordinance, it must establish that it was recognised by the respondent! Bank. It is true that one of the ingredients that the appellant Union had to1 establish was that it had been recognised by the respondent Bank as Collective Bargaining Agent. This is purely a question of fact. I find from the record of the case that at no stage did the Bank take up the plea that it had not recognised the appellant Union as Collective Bargaining Agent. Mr. Nanji, however, submitted that the plea raised by the Bank that a dispute having arisen about the Collective Bargaining Agent as to which of the Unions was the Collective Bargaining Agent, is tantamount to saying that they had never recognised the appellant Union as Collective Bargaining Agent There is no force in this submission. The plea that the Staff Union has applied for referendum and so long as no referendum was held and the Collective Bargaining Agent declared, the appellant Union cannot be said to be the Collective Bargaining Agent, is quite a different thing from saying that the Bank did not recognise at any time the appellant Union as the Collective Bargaining Agent. In fact, Mr. Syed Muhammad Zohair, Manager, New Town Branch of the National Bank of Pakistan, admitted in cross-examination that "the N. B. Employees' Front was the Collective Bargaining Agent." The admission, no doubt, is vague. It cannot necessarily mean that the Bank had accepted the status of the appellant Union to perform its functions under the Ordinance as Collective Bargaining Agent. The fact, however, remains that the Bank has nowhere clearly stated that it did not accept the appellant Union as Collective Bargaining Agent, so as to perform its functions under the Ordinance. It is true that they do not accept now, but if in the past the Bank had accepted its position as Collective Bargaining Agent, this will meet the requirement of section 52 of the Ordinance. Mr. Nanji also made a reference to section 22-A of the Ordinance, as it stood in 1970.
Subsection (2) of section 22-A of the Ordinance has no application in the absence of any Collective Bargaining Agent having been declared for the whole of the establishment. Mr. Nanji also made a reference to section 22-A (11) of the Ordinance. This debars the jurisdiction of the Labour Court and Tribunal to deal with matters which fall within the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Relations Commission. On the face of it, the determination of the question whether an application under section 34 of the Ordinance is maintainable or not is not within the ambit of the National Industrial Relations Commission. \ 4. I have come to the conclusion, after hearing the arguments of thjfcj learned Representatives of the parties, that the appellant Union can perform C the functions conferred on it by the Ordinance till a referendum is held. | 5. The next question that requires consideration is as to whether the appellant Union can espouse the cause of an individual workman under section 34 of the Ordinance. I have held in a number of cases that, however, liberal an interpretation may be given to section 34 of the Ordinance, it does not confer any right on the Collective Bargaining Agent to take up the cause of an individual workman, so as to nullify the provisions ot section 25-A of the Ordinance. I would hold that the finding of the learned Labour Court that the Union cannot take up the grievance on behalf of an individual workman, is correct. 6.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.