' This is a petition under the provisions of section 34 of the I.R.O., 1969 filed by the All Pakistan A.D.B.P.
Federation Workers, with the contention that the petitioner is an industrywise trade union i,e, Federation of Trade Union, at National Level and is also enjoying the status of C.B.A. In the establishment of A.D.B.P. Throughout the country. It was submitted that the responder are bent upon violation of the lawful rights of the petitioner in the recruitment/appointment of new jobs i,e, from Grade-1 to Grade-17. It was submitted that the following quota was reserved by the respondent establishment itself, vide circular dated 2-10-1989 which is reproduced ereinunder: -- 5% of the vacancies up to Grade-17 (Assistant Director) will be reserved every year for the children of the following categories of employees of the Bank in order of priority:
(i) Employees who expire during service.
(ii) Employees who have retired.
(iii) Employees seeking premature retirement for reasons of ill-health or otherwise.
(iv) Employees who are retiring within 2 years on attaining the age of superannuation.
(v) Employees who have served the Bank for at least 20 years.
' It was submitted that there are various settlements reached between the petitioner's Federation as collective bargaining, agent and the respondent-establishment which also secure the said lawful right of recruitment. It was submitted that finding of the Wage Commission Award 1984 also create the said right in favour of the petitioner. Considering such averments the petitioner was registered and interim injunction order was granted in favour of the petitioner on 8-12-1994.
2. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and have also considered the documents filed on record.
3. The main objection to the maintainability of the petition is that under he provisions of section 34 of the I.R.O., 1969, the collective bargaining agent an only invoke the jurisdiction of this Commission when it has possession of a rights guaranteed or secured to it by or under any law or any award or settlement. The provisions of section 34 of the I.R.O., 1969 are reproduced herein for ready reference: "34. Application to Labour Court.---Any collective bargaining agent or 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 of any award or settlement."
' After going through the above provisions it is clear that there must be a right in favour of the collective bargaining agent which is secured (i) either by law, (ii) or by any award, (iii) or by settlement.
' It is an admitted position of the case that there is no law under which such right of recruitment/appointment from the posts of Grades 1 to 17, whereby a quota of 5% has reserved for the above-quoted 5 categories of employees of respondent-establishment nor the Circular dated 2-10-1989 can be termed as the "law".
' The word "award" has been defined by the provisions of section 2(ii) of the I.R.O., 1969 and it would be relevant to reproduce herein the same:-- "2(ii): 'award' means the determination by a Labour Court, Arbitrator or Appellate Tribunal of any industrial dispute or any matter relating thereto and includes an interim award."
' After going through this definition it is clear that the Legislature has not included the "Wage Commission Award" in this definition, therefore, the petitioner has wrongly relied upon the Wage Commission Award, 1984. Besides, it is also necessary to observe here that the Wage Commission Award, 1984 has already been superseded by various other awards and at present Wage Commission Award, 1993 for banks and financial institutions is in force. Therefore, the petitioner has unlawfully and misconceivingly relied upon the Wage Commission Award, 1984. Furthermore, the Circular dated 2-10-1989 cannot be termed as "settlement", within the meaning of section 2(xxiv) of the I.R.O., 1969 as neither it is a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings nor it is an agreement between the employer and employees, which are the necessary elements for a document to be treated as settlement. Therefore, there is no other option with this Commission to declare that there is no right guaranteed in favour of the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Commission under the provisions of section 34 of the I.R.O., 1969, which is duly guaranteed or secured to 'it' by or under any law or any award or settlement.
' For reference the case of Karachi Pipe Mills v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal reported in PLD 1984 Karachi page 503 is referred. Similar views were taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case reported in 1992 SCMR page 143.
4. On the other hand, this Commission exercises the powers of a Labour Court under the provisions section 22-B(3)(a) of the I.R.O., 1969, while entertaining a petition under the provisions for section 34 of the I.R.O., 1969. The element of unfair labour practice is necessary element for the exercise of such powers while nothing has been brought on record to establish any act of unfair labour practice on the part of the employer, within the meaning of sections 15 and 16 of the I.R.O., 1969. This Commission can entertain a petition under the provisions of section 22-B(3)(a) of the I.R.O., 1969 as a Labour Court only when there is certain allegation of unfair labour practice, otherwise the ordinary Labour Court can only exercise such jurisdiction under, section 34 of the I.R.O., 1969. The verdict of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled as Iftikhar Ahmad etc. v. President of National Bank of Pakistan etc. Reported in PLD 1988 SC page 53 is referred.
5. The petitioner has also failed to establish that the fixation of 5% quota in the official appointment/recruitment from Grades 1 to 17 against the posts in the respondent-establishment, is one of the right guarantee to "it" is collective bargaining agent. If at all there exists any such right how the present petitioner can lawfully claim the enforcement of the same as C.B.A. In view of the finding of the Division Bench of Karachi High Court i,e, Karachi Pipe Mills v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and others reported in PLD 1984 Karachi 503 wherein word "it" used in section 34 was excluded from application upon a "workman" or a "group of workmen".
6. As a result of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the petition is misconceived and not maintainable and, therefore, is dismissed with a coat Rs,5,000. The file is consigned to record.