FEDERAL REVENUE ALLIANCE EMPLOYEES UNION vs FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE Regln — 2024 PLC 18 ISLAMABAD

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

FEDERAL REVENUE ALLIANCE EMPLOYEES UNION VS FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE Regln. 8(1)---Industrial Relations Act (IV of 2008), S. 1(3)(b)---Industrial Relations Act (X of 2012), S. 2(xxxiii)---Registration of employees of the Federal Board of Revenue as a trade union, matter of---"Workers" and "Workmen"---Scope---National Industrial Relations Commission ('N.I.R.C.')allowed registration of few employees of Federal Board of Revenue ('employees') as a trade union( by the name of Federal Revenue Alliance Employees' Union), against which order Federal Board of Revenue ('F.B.R.') filed a constitutional petition---Constitutional petition was allowed primarily on the ground that the members of the appellant / union were civil servants engaged in the administration of the State and therefore could not form a trade union---Employees preferred appeal against the said order passed in the constitutional petition---Plea of the appellant/employees was that though they were employees of the F.B.R. but some of them(members) came within the meaning of "workers" and "workmen"---Objection of the F.B.R. was that since the members of the appellant / union were civil servants as defined in S. 2 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 ("the 1973 Act") and were employed in the service of Pakistan, they were barred from forming a trade union in terms of S. 1(3)(b) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2008---Validity---At the time when the appellant / employees submitted an application for its registration for a trade union , the I.R.A., 2008 was in vogue---Section 1(3)(b) of the said Act provided that it shall apply to all persons employed in any establishment or industry, but would not apply to any person employed in the administration of the State other than those employed as workmen by the Railway and Pakistan Post---Said provision showed that the provisions of the I.R.A., 2008, were applicable to persons employed as workmen by the Railway and Pakistan Post but not to the persons employed in the administration of the State---After the Chairman, N.I.R.C., passed the order for the registration of the appellant / employees and during the pendency of constitutional petition filed by the F.B.R, the I.R.A., 2012 was enacted---Section 1(3)(b) of I.R.A., 2012, was different in terms to Section 1(3)(b) of the I.R.A., 2008---Section 1(3)(b) of the I.R.A., 2012, made the provisions of the said Act inapplicable to any person employed in the administration of the State other than those employed as workmen---Literally interpreted, S.1(3)(b) of the I.R.A., 2012, did not make the provisions of the said Act inapplicable to persons employed as workmen even though they might be employed in the administration of the State---Words "other than those employed as workmen" in S. 1(3)(b) of the I.R.A., 2012, saved such category of persons employed in the administration of the State from the inapplicability of the said Act---Therefore, the provisions of the I.R.A., 2012, were applicable to the workmen employed by the F.B.R.---Contention of the F.B.R. regarding the appellant being civil servants was not tenable since a "civil servant" as defined in S. 2(b) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, did not include a person who was either a "worker" or "workman" as defined in the Factories Act, 1934 and the Workers Compensation Act, 1923---Strictly speaking, the workers or workmen employed by the F.B.R. did not come within the meaning of "worker" or "workman" as defined in the said statutes but even so persons employed in the F.B.R. (assuming that they are employed in the administration of the State) would not ipso facto exclude them from the applicability of the I.R.A., 2012---Word "workmen" employed in S.1(3)(b) of the I.R.A., 2012, would be relatable to the definition of the word "workman" in S.2(xxxiii) of the I.R.A., 2012---F.B.R. could not be termed as an "industry" but was an "establishment" where workmen were employed---Additionally, S.2(xxxiii) of the I.R.A., 2012, excluded from the definition of "worker" and "workman", a person falling within the definition of employer---Word "employer" was defined in S.2(ix) of the I.R.A., 2012 and the said definition included "officers and employees of a department of the Federal Government who belonged to the superior, managerial, secretarial, directorial, supervisory or agency staff and who had been notified for said purpose in the Official Gazette" , therefore, any of the appellant who fell within the meaning of the word "employer" as defined in the said section could not be a part of the trade union---Since the members of the appellant came within the meaning of persons employed in the administration of the State but were not employed as workmen by the Railway or Pakistan Post, thus, the provisions of the I.R.A., 2008, were not applicable to them and, therefore, the impugned judgment did not suffer from any legal infirmity---As the development regarding the enactment of the I.R.A., 2012, took place while constitutional petition was pending and since the impugned judgment was passed bearing in mind the provisions of the I.R.A., 2008, there was nothing preventing the appellant from applying to the R.T.U. afresh for registration as a trade union under the provisions of the I.R.A., 2012---Intra-Court Appeal filed by the employees of the F.B.R was dismissed, in circumstances.

FEDERAL REVENUE ALLIANCE EMPLOYEES UNION vs FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE Regln — 2024 PLC 18 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PLC