Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 559/Q of 1974 heard on 31st May 1976.
‑‑ S. 561‑A read with industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 22‑A (f), 35(5) (c) & 53‑‑‑Stay of proceedings‑Petitioners proceeded against for unfair labour practices before a Magistrate‑ Dispute, already referred to National Industrial Relations Commission, as contemplated by S. 22‑A (f) of Ordinance‑Proceedings pending before Magistrate stayed till disposal of complaint before N. I. R. C. in circumstance, ‑‑[Stay of criminal proceedings].
S. M. R. Anwer for Petitioners.
Ghulam Qadir for Respondent No. 1.
Asim Jaffery for Respondent No. 2
Date of hearing: 31st May 1976.
Mian Manzoorul Haq, Managing Director and Muhammad Azam Siddiqui, General Manager, Aziz Tanneries Ltd. Sahiwal petitioners have come up for the quashment of the proceedings pending against them before a Magistrate at Sahiwal on the complaint, of their ex‑employee Ali Muhammad (respondent No. 2) for unfair labour practice punishable under section 53 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
2. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the offences under the industrial Relations Ordinance could only be tried by the Labour Courts as contemplated by section 35(5)(c) of the said Ordinance and that a Magistrate had no jurisdiction in the matter. It was next contended that adjudication of the cases of unfair labour practice was within the exclusive jurisdiction of National Industrial Relations Commission as contemplated by section 22‑A (f) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance and that both the Labour Court and the National Industrial Relations Commission had concurrent jurisdiction in the matter. Serious nature of unfair labour practice were tried by the Commis sion and others by the Labour Courts.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 contended that on 10‑10‑1974, Industrial Relations Ordinance was amended and the cases relating to offences of unfair labour practice were no longer tried by a Magistrate; but the com plaint in the present case was filed on 15‑8‑1974 and. taken cognizance of much before the amendment in the law. This would, therefore, not bar the jurisdiction of a Magistrate to conclude the trial in this case. There is force in this submission, but this is not all. Admittedly, the petitioners have also referred the dispute to the National Industrial Relations Commission, Islamabad in which an interim order has been passed by the Commission: against respondent No. 2 and three others. As the facts under consideration with the commission arose out of the series of acts connected with the same incident, it would, therefore, be proper that the proceedings in the complain pending before the Magistrate be stayed till the disposal of the complain before the National Industrial Relations Commission.
Order accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer