Find a Lawyer

Application No. MN‑174 of 1983, decided on 14th January, 1984

‑‑‑ Ss. 38 (3) & 46‑A‑Complaint for non‑implementation of direction of Labour Court‑Locus standi‑Beneficiaries of order should come forward in person to ask for action‑Officer of Labour Department making report under S. 46‑A to Labour Court for getting closure of Mills declared as illegal lock‑out ‑ Report accepted ' by Labour Court‑Officer of Labour Department moving application under S. 38 (5) for action against Occupier of Mills for non‑implementa tion of direction of Labour Court to re‑instate a number of workers‑Plea of respondent that such workers had received their dues in full and final settlement of their claims during pendency of case before Labour Court hence could not be re‑instated‑Such workers not authorising Labour Officer to bring petition under S. 38 (5)‑Labour Officer, in circumstances, held, bad no locus standi to bring criminal complaint and only aggrieved persons should come forward for such action.

Appellant in person.

Date of hearing: 9th January, 1984.

The Assistant Director, Labour Welfare (Conciliation), Multan has moved for taking action against the respondent under section 38 (5) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for not implementing the direction of learned Punjab Labour Court No. 8, Bahawalpur to re‑instate 146 workers of the Colony Woollen Mills, Multan.. The Woollen Mills was closed and the workers terminated, and the petitioner made report under section 46‑A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, .1969 for getting the closure declared as illegal lock‑out. The report was accepted. The plea of the respondent is that some workers during the pendency of the case under section 46‑A bad taken away their dues in full and final settlement of their claim, therefore, they could not be re‑instated. Clarification of the order passed by the learned lower Court was sought and the prayer was accepted but it was set aside in revision on the ground that the Labour Court had no power to review its final order.

2. Section 46‑A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 does not provide that if an order passed by the Labour Court is not implemented, the Assistant Director has locus standi to move for contempt. The peti tion does not disclose that 146 workers have authorised the Assistant Director to bring a petition under section 38 (5) on their behalf, so much so that even their identity has not been disclosed. Since re‑instatement in service is a personal right of the employees, only they can have a cause of grievance of non‑implementation of the order passed for their benefits. In criminal cases this is all the more necessary that the beneficiaries of an order should come forward in person to ask for taking action for the non‑compliance of the order of the Labour Court or this Tribunal. The peculiar circumstances of the case too demand that ‑the real aggrieved persons should come forward. The peculiarity is that according to the respondent, the workers who have settled their dispute are not interested in asking for re‑instatement.

3. As a result of what has been said above, the petition is filed in limine.

A. B. Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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