DECISION This is an appeal against an award of the learned Presiding Officer of Sind Labour Court No. V, Karachi, dated July 19, 1973, whereby the learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that the application filed by the Collective Bargaining Agent, under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called the Ordinance), was not maintainable. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal briefly put are these.
2. The Collective Bargaining Agent and the Management arrived at package deal on 16th May 1972. A number of demands of the Collective Bargaining Agent were amicably settled between the Collective Bargaining Agent and the Management, including the question of payment of gratuity. The Collective Bargaining Agent made an application under seciion 34 of the Ordinance on 18th April 1973, for payment of Rs. 10,980 as gratuity to one Miss Sher Banu E. Rangoonwalla. It may be mentioned at once that Miss Sher Banu E.
Rangoonwalla had resigned from service of the respondent's Management. Her resignation was accepted from 7th February 1973. The Collective Bargaining Agent claimed that Miss Sher Banu was entitled to 15 months' basic wages as gratuity, which came to Rs. 10,980.
3. The learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that the Collective Bargaining Agent was not entitled to espouse the cause of an individual workman and on that ground he dismissed the application as not maintainable 4. Mr. Ali Amjad, the learned Advocate for the appellant, contended that the settlement being between the Collective Bargaining Agent and the respondent Management, the Collective Bargaining Agent could take up the cause of an individual workman. In order to consider the contentions of the learned representatives appearing for the parties, it would be useful to reproduce section 34 of the Ordinance. It runs 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."
5. One thing is very clear from section 34 of the Ordinance that the Collective Bargaining Agent can apply to the Labour Court for enforcement of any right guaranteed or secured to it. If a narrow interpretation is given to section 34 of the Ordinance, the Collective Bargaining Agent can apply to the Labour Court only in respect of any right that may be guaranteed or secured to it under any law or any award or settlement. In other words, it cannot apply to the Labour Court in respect of any right that may be guaranteed or secured to any workman under any law or any award or settlement. There are certain rights which have been specifically guaranteed to the Collective Bargaining Agent. If there is any violation of any of those rights, the Collective Bargaining Agent would be entitled to make an application under section 34 of the Ordinance. I am, however, inclined to give a wider interpretation to the word "i" occurring in section 34 of the Ordinance, reproduced above. I would hold that the Collective Bargaining Agent can be said to have a guaranteed right to espouse the cause of the workers as a whole, but not an individual workman. The short question therefore, that requires consideration is as to whether the Collective Bai/aining Agent in its application under section 34 of the Ordinance nas espoused the cause of an individual workman or of the workers as such. Mr. Ali Amjad, the learned Advocate for the appellant, contended that a perusal of the application filed by the Collective Bargaining Agent would disclose that the intention of the Collective Bargaining Agent was to take up the cause of the workers as a whole. I have gone through the application and I am unable to construe the application to mean that the Collective Bargaining Agent has espoused the cause of all the workers. The relief claimed by the Collective Bargaining Agent reads as under :-- "It is, therefore, prayed that this Honourable Court may adjudicate the dispute between applicant and the respondents, examine all the facts and order that the amount of Rs. 10,980 be paid as gratuity on account of and to the above lady concerned."
6. Had the intention of the Collective Bargaining Agent been to espouse the cause of all the workers of the Union, the prayer would have been for enforcement of the rights of all the workers agreed upon under the settlement dated 16th May 1972.
A perusal of the application shows that the Collective Bargaining. Agent was concerned with the individual workman. Under section 34 of the Ordinance, even if it is interpreted widely, the word "it" occurring under the said section cannot be interpreted so as to espouse the cause of an individual workman. I would, therefore, maintain the order of the learned Labour Court and dismiss the appeal.