Find a Lawyer

Constitutional Petition No. S‑6l of 1976, decided on 22nd December 1982.

(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑--

‑‑ Ss. 13 (b), 54 & 55‑Complaint for non‑payment of bonus and allowances in terms of settlement‑Locus standi‑Contention that complaint could be filed only by Registrar of Trade Unions and that filed by individual aggrieved workman was incompetent‑Rejected.

Muhammad Akram and others v. 2nd Sind Labour Court 1976 P L C 719 ; Hoot Khan v. N. 1. R. C. P L D 1977 Kar. 145 and M. Maroof v. Muhammad Akram H. C. A. No. 14 of 1976 decided on 15th August, 1979 (unreported) rel.

(b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑--

---Ss. 54, 55 & 63‑Complaint for non‑payment of bonus and allowances in terms of settlement against Managing Director and other officers of Establishment pending before Labour Court‑Contentions in constitution petition before High Court that complaint was incom petent because having been filed without first prosecuting the Company in view of S. 63 and that complaint had become infructuous against one of the officers who had left employment of Company ‑Such pleas, held, could be taken before Labour Court‑Interference at such stage refused by High Court and matter left for decision by Labour Court‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199.

Hassan A. Shaikh for Petitioners.

Ali Amjad for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 22nd December, 1982.

The petitioners have challenged in the petition the competency of the pending complaint filed under section 54 read with section 55 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance against them by one Khuda Bukhsh before the 4th Sind Labour Court, Karachi complaining violation of the terms of settlement dated 3rd August, 1974. The petitioners are the‑Managing Director, Factory Manager, Administrative and Personnel Manager and )Manager, Factory Administration of Messrs Metropolitan Steel Corporation Limited, Karachi. Out‑of the above‑mentioned petitioners it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner No: 3 has since left the services of Messrs Metropolitan Steel Corporation Limited. The complaint filed against the petitioners relates to non‑payment of bonus, attendance allowance and house rent to some of the employees of the company in terms of the settlement dated 3rd August, 1974. Mr. Hassan A. Shaikh, the learned. counsel for the petitioners has raised the following Contentions before me in support of this petition : ‑

(i) That the complaint instituted against the petitioners is incompetent in law as such a complaint. can only be filed by the Registrar of Trade Unions or a person authorised by him in accordance with the provision of section 13 (b) of Industrial Relations Ordinance;

(ii) that Khuda Bakhsh had no locus standi to file the complaint against the petitioners as he himself was not aggrieved in any manner ;

(iii) that the institution of complaint against the petitioner without first prosecuting the company was incompetent in law in view of the provisions of section 63 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance; and

(iv) the complaint against petitioner No. 3 had become infructuous in any case as petitioner No. 3 had left the employment of company,

In support of his first contention the learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the case of Muhammad Akram Khan and others v 2nd Sind Labour Court (1976 P L C 719). This case which was decided by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan fully supports the conten tion of Mr. Hassan A. Shaikh. However, a contrary view is taken in the cases of Hoot Khan v. N. 1. R. C. (P L D 1977 Kar. 145). M. Maroof v. Muhammad Akram H. C: A. No. 14/76, decided on 15th August, 1979 which are not only late in time but they are decided by two different Division Benches of this Court and are therefore binding on me. The first contention of Mr. Hassan A: Shaikh, accordingly fails. The second contention of Mr. Shaikh also stands answered by the following observation in the case of M. Maroof v. Muhammad Akram: ‑

"It is a settled principle underlying criminal jurisprudence that the machinery of a criminal Court can be set in motion by any person unless the law specifically bars the filing of the complaint or imposing a clog in such behalf. The mere fact that law also provides for a particular authority having the power to prosecute would not operate as an exclusion in regard to the institution of criminal proceedings at the instance of another person."

I am informed by Mr. Hassan A. Shaikh, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the decision in the case of Mr. Maroof is under challenge before the Supreme Court and leave to appeal has been granted. It may b so but until such time the decision in the above case is overruled b Supreme Court it is binding on me. In so far the 3rd and fourth contentions of Mr. Shaikh are concerned they need not be decided at this stage a the proceedings are still pending before the Labour Court and it will be one to the petitioner to raise these contentions there which will be decided according to law.

With these observations the petition is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs. The proceedings before the Labour Court were stayed by this Court and since the petition is dismissed the Labour Court is directed to decide the case as expeditiously as possible.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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