' I. G. I. Staff Union hereinafter referred as the petitioner-Union has brought the under-consideration petition under section 34 read with section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 against M/s. International General Insurance Company of Pakistan Limited, 56-Shahrah-e-Quaide-Azam, Lahore seeking relief to the effect that the respondent be restrained from dismissing, terminating or discharging the members and office-bearers of the petitioner Union whose names and particulars are given in para. 2 of the petition.
2. The petitioner-Union has alleged that it had filed an Industrial dispute before this court which was dismissed on 6th November, 1975 at 1-30 p.m. Thereafter the petitioner-Union filed an appeal before Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal on 7th November, 1975 which was admitted but during the pendency of the said appeal the respondent wanted to dismiss/ terminate/discharge the aforementioned office-bearers and active members of the Union in violation of the section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance and hence the petition.
3. The respondent resisted the petition vehemently and pleaded inter alia that the under- consideration application was not legally maintainable as no right guaranteed or secured to the petitioner-Union by any law, award or settlement had been violated. The application had been filed to espouse the cause of individual workman and as such it was not competent under section 34.
On merits the respondent has maintained that no violation of section 47 has been done by the respondent. Only the services of the employees were retrenched on the principle of last come first go.
4. Maqsood Ahmad Ch., General Secretary of the petitioner-Union has testified as the witness for the petitioner-Union and he has stated that an industrial dispute with the Management had remained pending in this Court and now the appeal was pending before Labour Appellate Tribunal.
He has produced Exb. P-3 a certified copy of the order of Labour Appellate Tribunal dated 8th November, 1975 whereby the appeal by the Union was admitted. He denied the suggestion that he received the letter of retrenchment on 6th November, 1974 at 4 p.m. But refused to take delivery of the letter. He expressed lack of knowledge about the fact that M/s Fida Hussain, Ghulam Muhammad, Niaz Ahmed and Aslam Choudhry have received their dues in full and final settlement of the accounts after retrenchment, He admitted that appeal was preferred before the Labour Appellate Tribunal on 8th November, 1975. According to this witness the number of office-bearers including the executive members was six and total membership of the Union was 16.
5. In rebuttal Mr. Muhammad Sarwar, Superintendent Accounts I. G. I. Has testified. He has stated that M/s. Ghulam Muhammad, Aslam Choudhry and Fida Hussain after having been retrenched have received their dues in full and final settlement of their accounts and have executed receipts to the same effect. Photo copies of the receipts are Exh. R. 1 to Exh. R.
4. He further disclosed that letters of retrenchment were issued to M/s. Muhammad Yousaf Maqbool Ahmad and Gul Hamid Shah at 6th November, 1975 on 4 p.m. But they refused to receive the letters of retrenchment personally and then the letters were posted to them under certificate of posting and were also sent by the registered post A. D. Photo copies of the undelivered letters of retrenchment and postal covers etc. Have been produced as Exhs. R-6 to R-11. Copy of the judgment of the Labour Appellate Tribunal, dated 24th November 1976 has also been produced.
According to this judgment the appeal filed by the petitioner-Union has since been dismissed by the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal.
6. From the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the parties as has been detailed above, it transpires that this Court dismissed the Industrial dispute filed by the petitioner-Union against the respondent on 6th November, 1975 at 1-30/2-00 p.m. On the same day in the afternoon orders regarding the retrenchment of Mst. Ghulam Muhammad, Aslam Choudhry, Niaz Ahmed, Fida Hussain, Muhammad Yousaf, Maqsood and Gul Hamid Shah were issued. The appeal was field by the petitioner-Union on 8th November, 1975 and it was admitted on the same day. It would therefore follow that when the retrenchment orders were issued by the respondent no industrial dispute was pending between the parties before this Court or before the Labour Appellate Tribunal.
7. It is also in evidence that Mst. Fida Hussain, Ghulam Muhammad, Niaz Ahmed and Aslam Choudhry have received their dues in full and final settlement of their accounts after having been retrenched and they have no grievance in this behalf. The petitioner-Union has therefore hardly any justification to espouse their cause. This application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, in fact aims at espousing the cause of individual workmen who have been retrenched and some of whom do not feel aggrieved and have already received the dues in full and final settlement of their accounts. In Employees' Front v. National Bank of Pakistan and others it has been held by the Sind Appellate Tribunal that provisions of section 34, however liberally interpreted do not confer right to the CBA to take up cause of individual workman. Similar view has been taken in 1970 PLC 222 (2).
8. It is also noteworthy that in the under-cosideration case it appears from the contents of the letters of retrenchment that on account of substantial reduction in work load and the reduced business the Management has retrenched the workers concerned in accordance with Standing Order 13 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
Ordinance, 1968. Retrenchment is not prohibited by section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.1
9. In the light of what has been said above it is concluded that the under-consideration petition is not legally competent and has otherwise no merit as well. The same is accordingly dismissed. 1975 PLC 188