The Petitioner Mistri Abdur Rehman has filed the present petition under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 hereinafter referred to as the I.S.O against the Proprietors of Insaaf Silk Factory and Ittehad Silk Factory, Multan Road, Lahore seeking a relief to the effect that the respondent be directed to restore the right of attending duty to the petitioner with all back benefits.
2. He has contended that he was employed in the Industry named as Associated Textile Canvas Factory. Multan Road, Lahore since 1972 and was working as Technical Supervisor drawing a pay of more than Rs. 800 per month. He further alleged that under a sale deed of July, 1974, the owner-- ship rights of Associated Textile Canvas Factory were transferred to Haji Javed Akhtar who was running the Industry in two parts namely Insaaf Silk Industry and Ittehad Silk Industry. The said Haji Javed Akhtar has wrongfully locked out the petition on 12 December 1974 and hence this petition.
3. The respondent resisted the petition and raised a Preliminary objection that the petitioner being an individual workman was not entitled to seek any relief under section 34 of the I. R. O. and he could seek redress of the grievance if any under section 25-A of the I. R. O. before the Junior Labour Court.
4. Parties have been heard at a considerable length for the disposal of the aforesaid preliminary objection raised by the respondent.
5. Section 34 of the I.R.O. provides that 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. This means that an application under section 34 may be filed by the Collective Bargaining Agent or an employer. The petitioner in this case is obviously not a Collective Bargaining Agent. It is therefore, to be seen as to whether he is an employer asth envisaged in section 23 ibid. He has claim--ed in para. 1 of the petition that he was drawing pay of more than Rs. 800 p. m. and was thus an employer. The expression "employer" has been defined in section 2 (viii) of the I. R. O. The relevant portion of section 2 (viii) reads; "(viii) employer in relation to an establishment means any person or body of persons, whether incorporated or not which employs workmen in the establishment under a contract of employment and includes :-
(a) an heir, successor or assign as the case may be of such person or body as aforesaid ;
(b) any person responsible for the Management, supervision and control of the establishment;
(c) ------------------------;
(d) -----------------------;
(e) in relation to an establishment the proprietor of such establishment and every Director, Manager, Secretary, agent or other officer or person concerned with the Management of the affairs thereof.
6. The petitioner who is a Mistri was allegedly employed as Technical, Supervisor drawing pay of more than Rs. 800 p. m. does not appear to be covered by any of the clauses of the aforesaid definition of the expression "employer." He is therefore, positively not an employer and has no locus standi to file an application under section 34 of the I. R. O.
7. In view of the above preliminary objection raised by the respondent is accepted and the petitioner's application is dismissed as being not legally competent.