' An Appeal bearing No,KAR-165 of 1999 under section 37 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 came up before this Tribunal on 1-10-1999 for Katcha Peshi. Mr. Siddque Malik appeared as representative for the Appellant. On the querry by this Court as to the legal capacity under which he represented the appellant he stated that he is the General Secretary of the Port Qasim Workers Union. The appellant, on querry by this Tribunal submitted that he is worker in Mughal Works, Karachi, which is a private concern. The question, therefore, arose of the interpretation of Section 49 of the I.R.O., 1969; whether an office-bearer of another union can represent a worker having no concerned with the establishment.
2. Mr. Siddique Malik requested for time to satisfy this Tribunal on the point in question. The matter was then adjourned to 6-10-1999, as suggested.
3. The Registrar of this Tribunal was also directed to send a notice to the General Secretary of the Industrial Relations Advisors Association to assist the Court on that date. On 6-10-1999 Mr. Rafiq Malik, representing as General Secretary of the Industrial Relations Advisors Association, appeared before the Tribunal and requested for time to prepares the case. On his request the matter was adjourned to 13-10-1999. On 13-10-1999 Mr. Siddique Malik, representative for the appellant, was present and submitted that he could not prepare the case on the interpretation of section 49 of the I.R.O. But the Association has nominated nine lawyers. None of the nine lawyers named by the Association were present. Only Mr. S.M. Iqbal holding brief for Mr. S.M. Yaqob, Advocate requested that the later was busy in the High Court and as such the matter was adjourned to 14-10-1999 at 9,00 a.m. Sharp. On 14-10-1999 Mr. Siddiqu Malik, representative of the appellant, submitted an application that the Advocates nominated by the Association have requested through him that the matter be adjourned for their arguments to 18-10-1999. Application was granted and the matter was fixed for arguments on 18-10-1999 as first on the list. On 18-10-1999 besides Mr. Siddique Malik, representative of the appellant, Mr. Shahid Anwer Bajwa, Advocate submitted his arguments Mr. Faisal Mehmood, Advocate requested for a days' time as Mr. Mehmood Abdul Ghani was out of station. The matter was, thus, adjourned to next day at 9.00 a.m. On 19-10-1999 the appellant and his representative called absent; however I heard Mr. S.M. Yaqob, Advocate, a nominee of the Association. No other Advocate was present. I, therefore, adjourned the case for tomorrow i,e, 20- 10-1999 fixing the time at 9.00 a.m. On 20-10-1999 when the case was called, none of the Advocate was present except Mr Siddique Malik, representative of the appellant who requested the Court to keep aside the matter as Messrs Mehmood Abdul Ghani and S. P. Lodhi were busy before the N.I.R.C.
And they will come as soon as they are free from there. The matter was, thus, kept aside. The matter was taken up again at 11.00 O'clock when both Mr. Mehmood Abdul Ghani and Mr. S.P. Ladhi appeared. I then heard Mr. Mehmood Abdul Ghani, Advocate and then I asked Mr. Lodhi if he would like to make any submission. Mr. Lodhi stated that he would not like to add anything to what Mr. Mehmood Abdul Ghani had submitted. There was no other nominee of the Association present and I, therefore, concluded the hearing, and the order was dictated in open Court.
4. It seems appropriate to reproduce below provisions of section 49 of the I.R.O.
"49. resentation of parties:- A workman who is a party to an industrial dispute shall be entitled to be represented in any proceedings under this Ordinance by an officer of a Collective Bargaining Agent and subject to the provisions of subsection (2) and subsection (3) any employer who is a party to an industrial dispute shall be entitled to be represented in any such proceeding by a person duly authorised by him.
(2) No party to an industrial dispute shall be entitled to be represented by a legal practitioner in any conciliation proceedings under this Ordinance.
(3) A party to an industrial dispute may be represented by a legal practitioner in any proceedings before the Labour Court, or before an Arbitrator, with the permission of the Court or the Arbitrator as the case may be."
' A perusal of subsection (1) of section 49, the article 'a' has been used as prefix to "workman" and similarly article 'a' has been used in section 49 as prefix to "Collecitive Bargaining Agent".
5. Mr. Mehmood Abdul Ghani referred to 'The Law Lexicon' by P. Ramannath. Aiyer, wherein it has been stated that "A" is often as equivalent to "any". He also referred to Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, 1952 wherein it is stated "A" may sometimes be read as "some" e.g. In an order under the Municipal Elections (Corrupt and illegal Practices) Act, 1884 (47 & 48 Vict., C.70). S.28(5), directing a prosecution for "a" corrupt practice (R.V. Riley, 59 L.J.M.C. 122, cited Corrupt Practice). But more frequently "a" is the equivalent to "any". In Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Eight Edition, Volume I, Kansas City, M.O., 1914 it has been stated that "The article "a" is not necessarily a singular term, it is often used in the sense of "any" and is then applied to more than one individual object".
I' 1
6. The learned nominees whose names have been mentioned above mostly dealt with the matter is a historical perspective of England and India. They, however, appeared to be almost unanimous that the word "a" used in section 49 as prefix to "Collective Bargaining Agent" should be read as "Any".
7. It is, therefore, held that the word "a" used as prefix to "Collective bargaining agent" should not be given a restrictive meaning in "the "Collective Bargaining Agent to which the worker is a member.
8. It is noticeable that the opening words of subsection (1) of section 49 "a worker" would also mean "any worker".
9. It is well settled principle of interpretation of law that one word, used at more than one place, in the same section and in the same context, cannot convey two different meanings, unless the context means otherwise.
10. It is, therefore, held that a person, who is an officer of any collective bargaining agent of a registered trade union may represent a worker, provided he is duly authorised by the worker and his authorisation is authenticated before the Registrar of Tribunal and that the representative, who claims to be an officer of the collective bargaining agent produce a certified copy issued by the Registrar Trade Unions to that effect in any proceedings before the Labour Court or the Tribunal, as the case may be. If the said representative cease to be an officer of the C.B.A. He will intimate the Court concerned. Whereby it is intended to put check on the representation of workers by unauthorised persons and curb unprofessional and unethical prectices in the Labour Judiciary.
11. The Registrar of Trade Unions Sindh is also required to notify the change, if any, in the list of officers of C.B.A. Within seven days to the Court concerned.
12. The Registrar of this Tribunal will communicate this Order to all the Labour Courts of Sindh, the Labour Secretary, Directorate of Labour and all the Government departments concerned including the Registrar of Trade Unions, Sindh.
13. Before parting with the matter I would like to make mention of a point raised by Mr. Shahid Anwar Bajwa that Section 49 applies to an Industrial Dispute only. The term "industrial dispute" has been defined in Subsection (xiii) of section 2 of the I.R.O. This definition Excludes the matter covered by section 25-A because section 25-A relates to the rights gaurenteed or secured to a workman by or under any law, award or settlement for the time being in force. It was further submitted by him that section 43 prescribed that no industrial dispute will be deemed to exist unless it is raised in the prescribed manner by a Collective Bargaining Agent or by an employer, for which a workman, in individual capacity, has no locus standi, therefore, a proceedings under section 25-A will not be a proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute; with the result, section 49 will have no application to a petition, under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969. But this point, though interesting, does not concern me at this stage, as the notice to the Association has been issued in a different context. Any way, I am thankful to Mr. Shahid Anwar Bajwa and Mr. S. M. Yaqoob for their. Learned discourse on comperative study of Indo-Pak Law , in historical perspective, and so also Mr. Mehmood Abdul Ghani for searching out the judicial meaning of article "a" in a number of dictionaries.
' These are the reasons for my short Order dictated and announced in open Court on the conclusion of the hearing on 20-10-1999.