DECISION ' This is a revision petition under section 38(3) as well as an appeal under section 37(3), I. R.
0. And it Is directed against an order of the learned Presiding Officer, Second Labour Court dated 28.9-1977 allowing the application under section 34, I. R.
0. Filed before him by the present respondent and directing that the present appellant should allow Juma Khan to discharge his duties as a member of the Canteen Managing Committee.
2. The brief facts are that as the result of a dispute between these two parties and a charter of demands submitted by the respondent, a memorandum of settlement was agreed upon and duly executed between those two parties. The relevant Clauses of this memorandum of settlement are Clauses (iii) and (v) of paragraph 5 of this memorandum of settlement and they are set out below :- "5 (iv). It has been mutually agreed that the Canteen Managing Committee composed of equal Representatives of workers and the Management and constituted under the Karachi Canteen Rules would manage and control the affairs of the Canteen exclusively. The representatives of the Canteen Managing Committee would be nominated by the Union and the Management as per existing practice and law.
5 (v). It has been mutually agreed that for the effective Management of the Canteen the company would spare one workers representative of the Canteen Managing Committee in each shift. In case of absence of regular member of the Canteen Managing Committee, the Committee shall nominate one stand-bye worker who shall work for that particular date of absence of regular member."
5. In compliance with the terms of this settlement both parties nominated their representatives to serve on the Canteen Managing Committee and accordingly the respondents nominated Mr. Juma Khan, their General Secretary as their representative on this Canteen Managing Committee.
The appellants, however, objected to this nomination of Juma Khan on the ground that he had been suspended from their service and, therefore, as he was not at that time in their physical employment he could not serve as a workers representative on this Committee.
4. The respondents were not in agreement with this contention of the appellant and, therefore, they approached the Second Labour Court with their application under section 34, I. R.
0. With a prayer that inasmuch as a right guaranteed to them under the aforesaid settlement was being questioned, the Hon'ble Court would be pleased to direct and order the Souvenir Tobacco Company Ltd. To allow Mr. Juma Khan to enter into the factory canteen and discharge his functions as a member of the Canteen Managing Committee. This application was granted and hence the present revision petition-cum appeal.
5. I have heard Mr. Mehmood A. Ghani appearing on behalf of the appellant-Tobacco Company and Mr. Salim Raza, the Representative of the respondent-Employees' Union.
6. The short point that arises for determination in this matter is whether it is necessary and essential for a workers representative on the said Canteen Managing Committee to be in the actual physical employment of the Souvenir Tobacco Co. Ltd. So as to enable him to serve on this Committee. In order to reach a decision on this point it is necessary to closely and carefully examine the wordings of Sub-clauses (iii) and (v) of paragraph 5 of the memo of settlement. It appears from such an examination that the Canteen Managing Committee was to consist of an equal number of representatives of the workers and of the Management, the former to be nominated by the Union and the latter by the Management. Sub-clause (v) specifically states that "for the effective management of the Canteen the Company would spare one workers Representative of the Canteen Managing Committee in each shift." It seems to me that the important word here is "Spare" and that it connotes a sparing from service or duty of the Company.
I am fortified in this view by a perusal of the second sentence of this very sub-clause (v) of paragraph 5 which states that "in case of absence of a regular member of the Canteen Managing Committee, the Committee shall nominate one stand-by worker who shall work for that particular date of absence of the regular member." Here, again, it is emphasized that even a substitute committee member must be from among the workers actually then working for the Company.
7. Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani in the course of his arguments invited my attention to the definition of the word 'Spare" as contained in Chamber's dictionary. There it is stated that to spare is to abstain from using : to relieve. Now this definition clearly demands that sparing a worker means to abstain from using him as a worker ; or to relieve him of his duties as a worker so that he may attend the canteen on that day and serve as a Canteen Committee Member. In the case of Juma Khan the facts are that he was dismissed from service of the appellants on 16-12.1976 and he was suspended from service prior to that date. Since, therefore, he was not in the employ of the appellant- Company and was not permitted to enter upon the premises of their factory, he surely cannot be permitted to circumvent this embargo by attempting to serve on the Canteen Managing Committee.
8. For these reasons, then, I am satisfied that the said Juma Khan, a suspended and later dismissed worker cannot be permitted to serve as a workers' Representative on the Canteen. Managing Committee and, therefore, I am constrained to allow this revision petition-cum-appeal and set aside the impugned order of the Second Labour Court.