' This application under section 22A(8)(g) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was moved by Muhammad Asghar Mirza, Personnel/Factory Manager, Pattoki Sugar Mills against Sufi Muhammad Sadiq respondent No, 1, President, Labour Union, Pattoki Sugar Mills and Amir Afsar, respondent No,2 Office Secretary of the same union which is functioning as CBA. Respondents Nos, 3 and 4 Muhammad Arshad and Khalid Mahmood are President and General Secretary respectively of another union namely the Employees Union, Pattoki Sugar Mills. It was stated by the petitioner that a settlement was arrived at between the Employer and the CBA on 4-4-1991 to be effective from 15- 2-1991 granting further financial benefits to the workers but the respondents were bent upon undermining the goodwill prevailing between the employer and the workers and had launched "a campaign of corecion and pressure" against the employer thus disrupting the process of maintenance and repairs of machinery which is to be carried out during the off-season of the Sugar Mill. It was stated that respondents had demanded the cancellation of the allotment of a residential quarter to one Munawar Wahla and had extended threats to the petitioner and the General Manager that in case that allotment was not cancelled, these officers should be ready to face dire consequences. In para 6, it was mentioned that the respondents also demanded facilities not envisaged in the settlement dated 4-4-1991 (copy of which is attached as Annexure 'A' with the petition) and were claiming benefits by misinterpreting the clauses of the settlement and were forcing the Management to award special increments to their favourites thereby depriving the genuine beneficiaries and in' order to get their demands accepted by force had incited the workers in the different departments to go-slow. It, was alleged that the respondents had initially started their campaign for go-slow on 4-8-1991 which led to a total strike in the subsequent days. It has been mentioned in para 8 that respondents had also managed to stop the workers of the electrical section from attending to the urgent and emergent repairs and were also inciting the workers to resort to illegal device of cutting the water supply to the colony where the officers of the Mills reside. The copies of the reports of the. Security Department of the Mills are enclosed with the petition as Annexures C/1 to C/14. It was stated that the Management had been informing the Local Labour Department and the National Industrial Relations Commission about the illegal activities of the respondents through letters and telegrams. An apprehension was expressed in the petition that the respondents were likely to indulge in further unfair labour practices as they continued to pressurise and coerce the Management to accept their illegal demands. Alongwith the main petition an application under Regulation 32(2) of the NIRC (Procedure & Functions) Regulations, 1973 was filed and it was prayed that the respondents may be prohibited and restrained from carrying on their illegal activities and from holding gate meetings within an area of two kilometres around the factory. A further prayer was made to the effect that the respondents may be bound down to desist from committing acts of unfair labour practice by inciting the workers employed in the factory, to continue go-slow and to reduce the pace of repairs and maintenance work in the Mills.
2. The petition came up before me for hearing on 10-8-1991. I issued notice for 18-8-1991 to the respondents and in the meanwhile issued a prohibitory order directing the respondents and throught them all the workers of the factory to forthwith resume work and refrain from go-slow or any other form of illegal strike which may result in interference with the normal functioning of the Mills. They were further directed not to hold meetings inside the Mills or within a distance of one kilometre from the Mills.
3. On 18-8-1991 a written statement was filed on behalf of the respondents Nos,1 and 2. It was denied by them that they tried to embark on go-slow or complete strike or did anything to disrupt the normal working of the Mills. The petitioner and his learned counsel stated that the work was going on in full swing from 13-8-1991. Muhammad Arshad respondent No,3 was not present on 18- 8-1991 on account of illness of his mother, but the other respondents stated that they had no intention to disturt the work in the factory or indulge in any activity which may disrupt the working in the Mills. It was further brought to my notice by respondent No,4 that parties had been summoned by the Labour Directorate on 18-8-1991, to find a solution of the disputed items of the settlement on 9-4-1991.
4. In the written statement filed by respondents Nos,1 and 2 it was alleged that present petitioner Muhammad Asghar Mirza had a bent of mind against the trade union activities of the workers and during his stay in the Mills in 1986, he was responsible for about fifty cases against respondent No,1 and other workers of the mills. It was submitted that during the last year the Mills had earned more than 12 crores of rupees on account of the good Management-Labour relationship and Muhammad Asghar Mirza after his reposting to Pattoli Sugar Mills was out to shatter the peace which prevailed in the establishment. It was pointed out that some benefits extended to the workers in the agreement Exh. 'A' with the petition were sought to be withheld by the officers of the Mills and in this connection letters dated 3-7-1991 fR/2) and R/3, R/4 and R/5 all dated 3-8-1991 were addressed by the CBA to the General Manager, Pattoki Sugar Mills inviting his attention to fact that benefits of payment of earned leave or CPL (Compensatory Leave) to which the workers were entitled under the agreement were being withheld. The matter of allotment of family quarters as well as surplus recruitment were also raised in letters (R/4 and R/5) dated 3-8-1991. Some reports were attached with the written statement filed by respondents Nos,1 and 2 indicating that there was no go-slow in the factory and certain heads of departments had verified that the work was going on in the normal way.
5. The case was adjourned to 16-9-1991 on which date Muhammad Arshad and Khalid Mahmood respondents Nos,3 and 4 filed written statement. It was stated that the Management was trying to spoil the atmosphere in order to favour their favourite union i,e, Ittefaq Workers Union and is refusing to abide by the settlement of 4-4-1991. It was also stated that the workers were being deprived of the benefit of cash payment in lieu of leave, promotions were withheld and the workers were being issued show-cause notices without any good reason. It was further stated that the answering respondents i,e, respondents Nos:3 and 4 were not the members of office-bearers of the Labour Union and they had unnecessarily been implicated in the case.
6. It has been mentioned above that Labour Directorate was dealng with the dispute regarding implementation of the settlement but no agreement could be arrived at in spite of best efforts of the conciliator. It was brought to my notice that on 18-8-1991 the members of CBA appeared before the conciliator but the management did not turn up. (page 119 of the case file).
7. In the settlement dated 4-4-1991, which was to be effective from 15-2-1991 a number of benefits which were to be extended to all the employees of the Pattoki Sugar Mills were enumerated, under the head 'Bonus' it was settled that all the employees of the Pattoki Sugar Mills will be paid 11.6.
Bonuses and the payment will be according to the terms of the previous settlements. It was noted at page 10 of the settlement that it was settled that a sum of Rs, 1,24,98,000 shall be spent for the benefit of all the emloyees of the Pattoki Sugar Mills and in case of excess or any variation the CBA and the management will make an adjustment by negotiation.
8. It, however, does appear to me on the pleadings of parties that in spite of contradictory reports filed by both the parties there was some commotion and disruption of work in the factory but none of the respondents has been mentioned in any-report as instigator of go-slow or any unfair labour practice. It is of course mentioned in Security Report C-4 dated 7-8-1991 that workers were raising the slogans of Sufi Sadiq Zindabad but his presence is not mentioned and this does not connect him personally with the happenings in the Mills. The dispute in fact related to the disbursement of the benefits to the workers enumerated in the settlement of 4-4-1991 and the allotment of a residential quarter to Munawwar Wahla was just an incidental matter. The CBA was expressing its dissatisfaction since 3-7-1991 about the way the settlements was being implemented. The stand of the establishment is that bonuses were to he paid to the persons working in the Pattoki Sugar Mills including the officers appointed by the Punjab Industrial Development Board while the stand of the CBA is that the officers of latter category could not have benefited by this agreement as the CBA could only negotiate on behalf of the employees of the Pattoki Sugar Mills and since terms and conditions of service of such officers were determined by the Punjab Industrial Development Board; and they were transferable to any unit of the PIDB, the money meant for the employees of the Pattoki Sugar Mills could not have been diverted to their detriment for payment of bonus to the officers who were actually employees of the PIDB. The case of the management further was that in the past the bonuses were paid to the officers from the money reserved as a result of the previous settlements with the CBA and it was not open to the workers now to object to the payment of bonus to the officers from the amount fixed in the settlement of 4-4-1991. The respondents however pointed out that previously no amount was specified in any settlement for meeting the expenses of the benefits granted to the workers and the CBA was not concerned as to where from the Bonuses were paid to the officers appointed by the PIDB. It was further urged that the officers could not partake of the benefits of the settlement arrived at between the CBA and the establishment bacause the settlements by the CBA were exclusively on behalf of the workers and in any case it would be illegal to spend any part of the money meant for meeting the benefits granted to the workers for payment of bonus to officers who could not he presented by the CBA.
I find that the stand of the Management is factually and legally untenable. The perusal of the settlement dated 4th April, 1991 between the Management and the CBA shows that all benefits from Demands Nos,1 to 20 were in respect of the workers and there was no mention of officers and it was after the conclusion of the terms of the settlement that at page 10, it was mentioned that a sum of Rs,1,24,98,000 had been specified (for meeting the demands agreed to in the settlement). The stand of the establishment that the use of phrase{{URDU TEXT}} also included the officers is untenable in view of the trend and context of the settlement. It could only be interpreted to mean all workers and cannot he said to have been covering the officers also. According to clause (v) of section 2 of the IRO, 1969 the CBA means the trade union of workmen which under section 22 of the Ordinance "is an agent of the workmen in an establishment" or in an industry in the matter of collective bargaining. Under clause (a) of subsection (2) of section 7 of the IRO, 1969 a trade union of workmen is not entitled to registration unless all its members are workmen actually engaged or employed in the industry with which the trade union is connected. The law contemplates two different parties for negotiation for a settlement as defined in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, i,e, the Collective Bargaining Agent an exclusive agent of the workers on one side and the employer on the other side. Any fusion or amalgamation would be destructive of the objects of the law. The matter stands concluded by the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in 'Pakistan Tobacco Company Limited, Appellant v. Pakistan Tobacco Company Employees Union, Dacca and two others" (PLD 1961 SC 403). In this case their Lordships found that a salesman was not a worker and his cause could not have been espoused by the CBA. It was held that the dispute raised by workmen against their employer for the benefit of class of employees who fall in a different category from themselves is an abuse of the machinery of the Act. It was further observed at page 409 that the workmen cannot be permitted to raise an Industrial Dispute with their employers in regard to questions affecting the service conditions of any employee in the same establishment who belongs to a superior category distinct from and in a sense, above the body of workers who are collectively described as "workmen". The settlement of service conditions of such employees is to be effected freely, within the scope of law of contract, and is not susceptible of control through the instrumentality of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. This opinion was affirmed in the "Workers of Bata Shoe Company v. Bata Shoe Company and another" (1971 PLC 1) wherein it was observed at page 7 that workmen could not raise questions relating to other employees not falling within the definition of workmen of the same Management. Even if the interpretation of the Management is accepted, the settlement would be illegal and unenforceable to the extent of the officers.
9. The Management placed on record a statement of payment of bonuses to officers from 1980-81 to 1990-91 which I have marked as 'A'. It shows that 11.06 bonuses were paid to the officers in 1990-91 and a sum of Rs,14,82,439 was spent on this account. The Respondents on the other hand asserted that it was for the time that a sum to be spent on the benefits extended to the workers by way of settlement, was specified and mentioned in the settlement dated 4-41990 and no money could have been diverted for payment of bonus to the officers from this specified amount. It was further their stand that even if previously bonuses were paid to the officers from the money specified for the benefit of the workers, it was illegal and in contravention of the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
10. The stand of the respondents appears to be legally correct. I find that the diversion of a sum of Rs, 14,82,439 from the settled amount of Rs,1,24,98,000 for payment of bonuses to the officers was illegal and the previous practice or precedent cannot be invoked to atone for or remove this illegality. I have found above that there was disturbance in the factory in the form of commission of unfair labour practice because the workers had a grievance that the settlement was not being properly enforced. In paras 6 and 7 of the written statement filed by respondents Nos,1 and 2, instances of violation of the terms of the settlement dated 4-4-1991 have been detailed and reference has been made to denial of special increments and benefits of cash payment of Earned Leave and Compensatory leave to about 600 workers. By letter dated 13-6-1991 Exh. R/22 on the record, the management had tried to take back the benefits of encashment of Earned/Compensatory leave and had directed that all Compensatory Leave earned during the crushing season of 1990-91 must be availed of before 31st August, 1991, after which the casual leave will lapse automatically. It was pointed out with reference to item No, 9 of the settlement dealing with leave that the concession for payment of cash in lieu of leave was unconditional and the Management had no right to intercept or take away this concession by issuing letter dated 13-6- 1991. The Management in their letter dated 7th August, 1991 (at page 41 of the file) addressed to the Joint Director Labour said that CBA wanted the Management to follow their dictates on certain clauses of settlement for the year, 1991-92 and was bent upon disrupting the peace and subverting discipline of the Mills to meet their own ends. The security report C/10 dated 5-8-1991 attached with the petition indicates that the workers were saying that unless their demands were met, they will not permit the work to go on. The report of the Labour Director also indicates that the dispute about the payment of bonus to officers remains unsettled. It can therefore, be held that the bone of contention between the parties is the enforcement of the settlement of 4-4-1991. This would also show that the matter is simmering and may again erupt any time
11. There has already been disturbance and disruption in the working of the factory as a result of acts of unfair labour practice. Under clause (g) of subsection (8) of section 22A of the IRO, 1969 the Commission has the power to take measures to prevent the employer or workmen from committing unfair labour practice in such manner as has been prescribed by Regulations framed under section 22F of. IRO, 1969. Under para (2) of Regualtion 32 of the N1RC (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973 framed under section 22F of the IRO, 1969 the Commission has the power to advise, direct or prohibit all or any of the connected persons to conduct themselves or their affairs in a manner calculated to avoid occurrence of unfair labour practice. The Commission under subsection (9) of section 22A of the IRO, 1969 can also suo motu take notice of any matter which relates to its functions, one of which is to prevent recurrence of the commission of unfair labour practice. Under clause (g) of subsection (8) of section 22A of the IRO, 1969 referred to above, the Commission is to deal with the matter of unfair, labour practice in the manner laid down under section 25A or section 34 or in such other way as may be prescribed. There being admittedly a dispute causing an apprehension of unfair labour pratice in future, the Commission can suo motu take notice of this fact and take cognizance of the collective grievance of the workers as ventilated in their written statement and other documents on record, under subsection (10) of section 25A and section 34 of the IRO, 1969 in regard to the nonimplcntation of the settlement. It was urged by the learned counsel appearing for the Management that since the question of interpretation of the settlement is involved, the parties may be left to seek interpretation from the Labour Appellate Tribunal under section 50 of the IRO, 1969. There is no ambiguity in the terms of the settlement and I have held above that the stand of the Management that phrase{{URDU TEXT}} used in the para relating to payment of bonus covered the officers also, is neither factually correct nor legally sustainable. The terms of the settlement are clear. There is therefore, no question of interpretation involved in this case. The stand taken by the Administration or the petitioner is hit by a patent illegality.
12. I have found above that diversion of Rs,14,82,439 from the money meant to be spent for the benefit of the workers was illegal and this illgality cannot be removed by precedent and previous practice. I have also made reference to the fact that the Management sought to curtail the benefits of cash payment in lieu of leave by issuing letter dated 13-6-1991 (Exh. R/22) and I find that non-enforcement of the settlement is the reason for the previous commission of unfair labour practice and I also feel that it is likely to recur if the grievance of the workers in this respect continues. The report of Mr. MA. Hamidi, Deputy Director, Labour dated 28-1-1991 shows that the differences regarding the implementation of the settlement in regard to the payment of bonus continue and in spite of the best efforts of the conciliator, could not be resolved. Even after the filing of this petition and restoration of normalcy in the Mills on 13-8-1991, the dissatisfaction of the workers over the failure of the establishment to implement the terms of award continues as would be evidenced by letter dated 15-9-1991 addressed by the General Secretary, CBA Union to the General Manager, complaining that about 60 lacs of rupees were paid to the officers from the amounts specified for the benefit of the workers and that the CBA should be permitted to have accounts in this respect audited according to law.
13. A statutory duty is cast on the Commission to prevent the recurrence of unfair labour practice.
The trouble is likely to flare up again if the matter is left as it is. Therefore, in order to prevent the recurrence of unfair labour practice I direct that a sum of Rs, 14,82,439 which was illegally diverted from the settled amount for payment of bonus to the officers shall be utilised for the benefit of the workers and to implement those terms of settlement dated 4-4-1991 which remain unsatisfied.
14. Except the bare allegations contained in the petition, the record does not indicate the involvement of the respondents in the commission of any unfair labour practice. Respondents Nos,1 and 2 appear to have been selected because they were considered to be leaders. The reason for involvement of respondents Nos,3 and 4 remains undiscovered because they do not belong to CBA and are not its members. The respondents appear to have been dragged in Court unnecessarily.
Each one of them shall be paid Rs, 1,000 (Rupees one thousand) as costs by the petitioner. The petition stands disposed of with the above directions.