ORDER DR. MUNIR AHMAD MUGHAL, MEMBER.- The petitioners are Accounts Officers of Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation and members of Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Officers Association which is an industry-wise trade union registered with the NIRC. They were originally employees of T & T Department, Government of Pakistan but on the establishment of Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation under the provisions of the Ordinance No. XVI of 1990, the services of all the petitioners alongwith other employees were transferred to Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation and now all the petitioners are employees of Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation for all intents and purposes.
Prior to the establishment of P.T.C, the post of Senior Accounts Officers were to be filled in by promotion of Accountants who have passed the departmental examination and there was no concept of direct recruitment. Under section 9 of the PTC Ordinance, 1988 which law has become an Act of the Parliament terms and conditions of the employees cannot be changed or governed by the rules of T & T Department. The PTC has adopted the rules of the T & T Department vide letter dated 9.2.1992. It is alleged that due to the petitioners being members of a trade union the management is hostile towards them and does not like to fill in the post by promotions of the petitioner and has got published the advertisement in the daily Jang Lahore in its issue of 30.5.1992 for direct recruitment of Senior Accounts Officers. The petitioners allege that they are entitled to be promoted according to their seniority. The petition is under section 22-A(8)(g) of the IRO, 1969 and the petitioners allege that publication of advertisement for direct recruitment and ignoring the petitioners amounts to an unfair labour practice. They have also alleged that even otherwise since the petitioners are. Members of industry-wise trade union, the Commission can exercise under section 25-A of the IRO, 1969 and to entertain and adjudicate upon the present petition. The petitioners have prayed for a prohibitory order to restrain the respondent including all other persons from committing unfair labour practice and more particularly restraining them to make appointments of Senior Accounts Officers by direct recruitment. The petitioners have also sought a direction from this Commission to the respondents to consider the petitioners in DPC and to promote them as Senior Accounts Officers.
2. The respondents have denied the allegations of unfair labour practice and have taken the stand that neither the petition is maintainable in its present form as the same is not within the scope of section 22-A(8)(g) of the IRO, 1969 nor. The matter falls within the jurisdiction of this Commission.
The respondents have stated that the petitioners being admittedly active members of the PTC Officers Association and that they are employers and there is no provision in the IRO to agitate their claim with regards to the terms and conditions of their employment before this Commission.
3. Arguments have been heard from both sides on the question of maintainability of this petition and jurisdiction of this Commission.
4. Admittedly the petitioners have moved this petition under section 22- A(8)(g) of the IRO, 1969.
This section states that one of the functions of the Commission is to deal with cases of unfair labour practice specified in sections 15 and 16 of the IRO, 1969 on the part of the employers, workman, trade union of either of them or persons acting on behalf of any of them whether committed individually or collectively in the manner laid down under section 25-A or section 34 of the IRO, 1969 or in such other way as may be prescribed by regulations under section 22F, measures calculated to prevent an employer or workman from committing an unfair labour practice.
5. In other words an unfair labour practice can be committed by a worker against the employer or by an employer against his worker. There is no conception of commission of an unfair labour practice by an employer against an employer or by a workman against a workman.
6. So far as section 25-A of the IRO, 1969 is concerned, it says that:- "(1)A worker may bring his grievance in respect of any right guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law or any award or settlement for the time being in force to the notice of his employer in writing, either himself or through his shop steward or collective bargaining agent, within three months of the day on which cause of such grievance arises;
(2) Where a worker himself brings his grievance to the notice of the employer, the employer shall within fifteen days of the grievance being brought to his notice, communicate his decision in writing to the worker;
(3) Where a worker brings his grievance to the notice of his employer through his shop steward or collective bargaining agent the employer shall within seven days of grievance being brought to his notice, communicate his decision in writing to the shop steward or, as the case may be, the CBA;
(4) If the employer fails to communicate decision within the period specified in sub-section (2) or, as the case may be, sub-section (3) or if the worker is dissatisfied with such decision the worker or shop steward may take the matter to his CBA or the Labour Court or as the case may be, the CBA may take the matter to the Labour Court, and where the matter is taken to the Labour Court, it shall give a decision within seven days from the date of the matter being brought before it as if such matter were in an industrial dispute;
(5) Provided that a worker who desires to so take the matter to the Labour Court shall do so within a period of two months from the date of the communication of the employer or, as the case may be, from the expiry of the period mentioned in sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) as the case may be.
7. In other words this section deals with the redressal of individual grievance of a worker as against enforcement of any right guaranteed or secured by or under any law or award or settlement to a CBA or an employee which is provided under section 34 of the IRO, 1969. Every individual grievance of any nature cannot validly form the subject matter of an application under this Section. Only individual grievances in respect of any right guaranteed or secured to a worker by or under any law or award or settlement for the time being in force can be redressed under this section. To be promoted is not a right guaranteed under the law and in the present case neither section 22-A(8)
(g) of the IRO, 1969 is of any help to the petitioners nor section 25-A of the said Ordinance.
8. So far as section 34 of the IRO, 1969 is concerned, it gives a right to the CBA or the employer to apply to the Labour Court for the enforcement of any right guaranteed or secured to it or them by or under any law or award or settlement. In other words this section again mentions only two parties namely the CBA on the one side and the employer on the other side or vice-versa. There is no conception of parties being employer and employer or CBA and CBA. Thus this section is also of no help to the petitioners.
9. Lastly there remains section 43 of the IRO, 1969 which begins in the negative form and reads as under:- "No industrial dispute shall be deemed to exist unless it has been raised in the prescribed manner by a collective bargaining agent or an employer."
10. In other words this section does not recognise the exitance of industrial dispute unless it is raised by a collective bargaining agent in the prescribed manner i.e. By negotiation under section 26, conciliation under section 30, arbitration under section 31 and adjudication by Labour Court under section 35 of the IRO, 1969. Even the rival trade union even if it is registered trade union which is not certified as CBAs is incompetent to raise any industrial dispute. The petitioners are members of an Officers Association which is a trade union of employers and according to the definition of a CBA as given in section 2(v) of the IRO, 1969, the CBA in relation to an establishment or industry means the trade union of workmen which, under section 22, is the agent of the workmen in the establishment or as the case may be, industry, in the matter of collective bargaining.
11. There is no concept of CBA concerning the trade union of employers. The registration of trade union of employers is one thing and the CBA-ship under the IRO, 1969 is another thing. The right to be determined and certified as CBA under the IRO, 1969 is available to the trade union of workmen.
The result is that section 43 is also of no help to the petitioners and consequently neither the petitioners have any locus standi to make the petition of the kind and nature they have made in the form of the present petition nor this Commission has jurisdiction to hear, adjudicate and decide upon it. The element of unfair labour practice is lacking throughout. The petition, is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs alongwith the stay application and petition No.7 (162)/92-L which has been instituted by one Muhammad Ashraf Anjum in his individual capacity who is also one of the petitioners in case No. 4A(649)/92-L is also turned down for the same reason as the grounds of both the cases are exactly the same. The proper forum for the petitioners in both the cases is the Ordinary Civil Courts.