PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY LIMITED vs PAKISTAN TELECOM LABOUR UNION Ss — 2024 PLC 79 ISLAMABAD

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

PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY LIMITED VS PAKISTAN TELECOM LABOUR UNION Ss.33, 20, 21 & 60---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Intra Court Appeal---Constitutional petition seeking relief(s) for the enforcement of legal right(s) of the members of trade unions---Maintainability---Collective Bargaining Agent ('CBA'), functions of---Functions of a trade union in the absence of a certified CBA---Scope---Appellant( Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited ('P.T.C.L.'), impugned the judgment passed by the Single Bench of the High Court whereby constitutional petition filed by respondents (four registered trade unions in the establishment of P.T.C.L.) was partly allowed---Plea of the respondents / trade unions, while placing reliance on S. 21 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 ('the I.R.A, 2012'), was that a registered trade union can perform any act or function which is required to be performed under the provisions of the I.R.A, 2012, by a CBA where it has not been notified; and since the CBA had not been notified at the time when the constitutional petition was filed, the respondents / trade unions were well within their rights to have filed the constitutional petition---Validity---All the petitioners in constitutional petition were trade unions in the establishment of P.T.C.L.---Relief that was sought in the constitutional petition as referred to in relevant paragraph of the memo of petition as well as the prayer clause showed that none of the reliefs sought were for the enforcement of any of the legal rights of the trade unions but those of its members---Section 33(1) of the I.R.A, 2012, entitles a worker to bring his grievance in respect of any right guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law or any award or settlement to the notice of his employer in writing "either himself or through his shop steward or collective bargaining agent" within 90 days of the date on which the cause for such grievance arises---Under said S.33(1), a CBA can espouse the cause of a worker by submitting a grievance notice to the employer---Similarly a grievance petition under S. 33(4) of the I.R.A, 2012, against a decision of the employer can be filed before the N.I.R.C. by the CBA when a dissatisfied worker takes the matter to the CBA---Section 20 of the I.R.A., 2012, provides for the functions that the CBA can perform; S.20(1)(b) entitles a CBA to represent all or any of the workmen in any matter or judicial proceedings under the I.R.A, 2012---Unlike S. 33(1) and (4) of the I.R.A, 2012, S. 20(1)(b) only entitles the CBA to "represent" workmen in any matter or judicial proceedings under the I.R.A, 2012, although the said provision entitles the CBA to represent workmen, it does not authorize the CBA to file or institute legal proceedings or to take a matter on behalf of workmen before any forum---Furthermore, under the said provision, the CBA has been entitled to represent workmen in any matter or judicial proceedings under the I.R.A---The term "under this Act" employed in the said provision has reference only to the I.R.A, 2012, and no other statute, therefore, even if it is presumed that the said provision entitles the CBA to file or institute judicial proceedings, such proceedings can only be under the provisions of the I.R.A, 2012---Constitutional petition filed by the respondents / trade unions was under Article 199 of the Constitution, and the petition's proceedings before the High Court in the said petition were most certainly not proceedings under the I.R.A, 2012---Therefore, High Court viewed that S. 20(1)(b) of the I.R.A, 2012, did not entitle a CBA to file or institute a petition under Art. 199 of the Constitution in its own name for the benefit of its members / workmen---Plea of the respondents was of no benefit to them since a CBA could not file or institute a constitutional petition in order to espouse the cause of workmen by relying on S. 20(1)(b) of the I.R.A, 2012---A trade union cannot take advantage of S.21 of the I.R.A, 2012, in order to perform an act or function in absence of a CBA which S. 20 does not confer on it to perform---Even if the rights of the workers which the respondents / trade unions were seeking to enforce by filing a constitutional petition were to be treated as the collective rights of their members / workers, S.60 of the I.R.A, 2012 gives the CBA the right to apply to the N.I.R.C. for the enforcement of any right guaranteed or secured to the workers collectively by or under any law, award, settlement, or decision---In the presence of such an alternative remedy provided by the law, a CBA cannot file a constitutional petition for the enforcement of a right guaranteed or secured to workers under any law, award, settlement, or decision---A fortiori, a trade union, in the absence of a certified CBA, can also not file a constitutional petition to enforce a right guaranteed or secured to workers under any law, award, settlement, or decision---Existence of a legal right is the foundation of a writ of mandamus and the petitioner has to be an aggrieved person---Petitioner, in order to obtain relief by way of a writ of mandamus, must satisfy the High Court that he has a legal right to compel the performance of a duty and the person against whom the right is sought is under a legal obligation to perform the duty---Person cannot be said to be an aggrieved person unless he has a right in the performance of a statutory duty by a person performing functions in respect of any such right---Only an aggrieved person can file a constitutional petition other than a writ of habeas corpus and quo warranto---In the present case, the respondents / trade unions (which were the writ petitioners) were not seeking the enforcement of their own legal rights but those of their members, which was apparent from the prayer sought in the constitutional petition filed by the respondents / trade unions---Therefore, the respondents / trade unions could not be termed as aggrieved persons having the right to file a constitutional petition to espouse the cause of their members---It is no longer res integra that a trade union or an association cannot espouse the cause of its members by filing a constitutional petition in its own name---Thus, the ground taken by the appellant ( P.T.C.L.) regarding the incompetence of the constitutional petition filed by the respondents / trade unions succeeded---High Court set-aside the impugned judgment having been passed in the constitutional petition filed by the respondents / trade unions , thus the same ( constitutional petition) stood dismissed being not maintainable---Dismissal of the said constitutional petition shall not debar the aggrieved workers in the establishment of P.T.C.L. from taking their grievances in accordance with the law before the appropriate forum---Intra Court Appeal filed by Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited the was allowed, in circumstances.

PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY LIMITED vs PAKISTAN TELECOM LABOUR UNION Ss — 2024 PLC 79 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PLC