Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. KAR‑689 of 1981, decided on 13th January, 1982. Industrial

‑‑Ss. 37 & 38‑Contempt proceedings‑‑Workman's representative making averments in written arguments before Tribunal likely to lower dignity of Tribunal and to prejudicially affect administration of justice of Labour Courts‑Workman a semi‑literate person not understanding proper functions of Tribunal mistakenly using language in application containing highly derogatory remarks in respect of Tribunal‑Contempt notices issued‑‑Both realising their error expressing sincere oral apology followed by unconditional written apology‑Notices, in circumstances, discharged and proceedings terminated‑Complaint of workman against Management not disclosing any offence except that Management assisted Tribu nal in tracing out old record Complaint, in circumstances, dis missed.

Ch. M. Maarif, Representative of Workman.

Respondent in person.

Two separate notices for proceeding in contempt were issued in Appeals No. KAR‑226 of 1981 and 238 of 1981. One notice was issued to Ch.M. Maarif, the learned Representative of the workman, Raza Khan and was in consequence of the avertments made in the written arguments filed by him on 1st November, 1981. Some of these averments, prima facie: are likely to lower the dignity of this Tribunal and prejudiciaily effect the administration of justice of the Labour Courts. However, it is unnecessary to dilate on the subject or to reproduce the offending obser vations in the written arguments as Ch. M. Maarif has realised his error and on 9th December, 1981 he orally expressed sincere apology for the objectionable observation made in his written arguments. He followed up his oral and unconditional apology with a written apology made on 10th December, 1981. Thereafter also he has sincerely assured the Court that he meant no disrespect and holds this Tribunal in high esteem Since the apology is unconditional as well as sincere I am of opinion that no further proceedings against Ch. M. Maarif are called for. The notice is, therefore, discharged. I am sanguine that Ch. M. Maarif in future will conduct himself with dignity and respect towards not only this Tribunal but to any other Court exercising power under the law.

2. The second contempt notice was issued to workman Raza Khan and was based on an application made by him on or about 19th November, 1981, which application contained highly derogatory remarks in respect of this Tribunal. Respondent Raza Khan, however, on 12th January, 1982, orally expressed apology for his improper remarks, in respect of this Tribunal. He has followed up his oral and unconditional apology by a written apology. He has assured me that the apology is sincere and from his heart. It appears that respondent Raza Khan is only semi‑literate and has not understood the proper functions of this Tribunal and his duty to show respect to it and to other Courts and has thus mistakenly used language in respect of this Tribunal for which he is now sincerely sorry. As respondent Raza Khan has expressed sincere and unconditional apology for his improper language and I am satisfied that this apology comes from his heart. I am of the view that this apology should be accepted and that there is no necessity for imposing any penalty ‑ on him for the contempt committed by him. I would, accordingly, accept his apology and direct that further proceedings against the contemner should stand terminated.

3. Workman Raza Khan has also filed a complaint against 'the Administrative Manager of Dawood Cotton Mills Ltd., and Mahmood Abdul Ghani, who appeared for the management of Dawood Cotton Mills, in Appeals Nos. 226 and 238 of 1981. The main allegation in the complaint filed by Raza Khan is that the said two persons had misguided the Court by bringing out an old record which did not have relevance in the two appeals filed by the parties. I have already passed, on 24th November, 1981, a detailed order, dismissing the grievance petition of Raza Khan and further holding that the appeals filed by the parties aris ing out of the said grievance petition had consequently become infructuous. This order was based on the order, dated 11th August, 1976 of the Fourth Labour Court, dismissing the grievance Petition of Raza Khan, which was received on remand by it from the High Court through the Second Labour Court, for non‑prosecution as Raza Khan had failed to attend the Court in spite of repeated issue of process and even publica tion of notice in the papers. It cannot be said that the assistance given to this Tribunal by the management of Dawood Cotton Mills and their learned representative, Mr. Mahmood Abdul Ghani, in tracing out the old record containing the aforesaid order, was an attempt to misguide the Court. Perusal of that old record shows that .the case was received by the learned Labour Court on remand from the High Court and in pursuance of that direction the notice was issued to Raza Khan for appearance. I am, therefore, of opinion that the complaint filed by Raza Khan does not disclose any offence on .the part of either of the two respondents. I accordingly dismiss the same.

Complaint dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.