Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 737 of 1982, decided on 9^thDecember, 1984.

‑‑‑S. 561‑A‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O. 16 (3)‑‑Quashing of proceedings‑‑Proceedings under S.O. 16(3), West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 do not constitute criminal proceedings‑‑Section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. or any other provision of Criminal Procedure Code, held, not attracted in circumstances‑‑Application dismissed‑‑[Mst. Khatija v. The State P L D 1978 Kar. 348 held not applicable].

Mst. Khatija v. The State P L D 1978 Kar. 348 held not applicable.

Abdul Wali Makhdoom for the State.

Sanaullah Qamar for Respondent No.2.

Date of hearing: 9th December, 1984.

This is an application under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. for quashment of proceedings under Standing Order 16(3) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the said Ordinance). The facts of the case are as under:‑

Applicant Muhammad Ahmed Khan (deceased) was a contractor of respondent No. 2 and in this capacity he was occupying a residential quarter within the premises of respondent No. 2. His contract was terminated by respondent No. 2 and thereafter the applicant was directed to vacate the residential quarter. On his refusal to vacate the same, an application was filed under Standing Order 16(3) of the said Ordinance before Assistant Commissioner and S.D.M. Malir, who by his order, dated 16th September, 1982 directed the applicant to vacate the residential quarter within a week. After three days of the order of the Assistant Commissioner, the applicant filed this application under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. for quashment of 'Criminal Case No. 26 of 1982 under section 16 of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Order) Ordinance, 1968 pending in the Court of Assistant Commissioner and S.D.M. Mahr, Karachi'.

2. This application for quashment should have been dismissed at the very inception for the reason that the case was decided by the S.D.M. finally on 16‑9‑1982. Hence the question of quashment of proceedings did not arise on the date when this petition for quashment was filed on 19‑9‑1982. However, even on merits this application should be dismissed because no proceedings under Criminal Procedure Code were taken against the applicant. The impugned order was passed under Standing Orders 16(3) of the said Ordinance. It will be proper to reproduce Standing Order 16 which runs as under:‑

"16. Eviction from residential accommodation.‑ (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of any law for the time being in force, including those of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 (W.P. Ordinance VI of 1959), a workman occupying residential accommodation provided by his employer, who has resigned or retired or has been retrenched, discharged or dismissed, or whose services have been terminated, shall vacate such accommodation within a period of two months from the date of his retrenchment, discharge, dismissal or termination of services, as the case may be, provided that in case of re instatement of the workman, the employer shall be bound to provide him with similar residential accommodation from the date of such reinstatement or pay him per mensem an allowance in lieu thereof at the rate of three times the wages of the last full working day.

(2) If a workman, who has been retrenched, discharged or dismissed, or whose services have been terminated, fails' to vacate any residential premises provided by the employer, within the period specified in clause (1), the employer may lodge a complaint with a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction in the area where such residential accommodation is located.

(3) The Magistrate on hearing the parties, may notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, summarily decide the case and may pass an order of eviction, giving the workman a reasonable time to vacate the premises."

From the above provisions it would appear that proceedings under the Standing Order 16(3) do not constitute criminal proceedings and as such section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. or any other section of Cr.P.C. shall not be attracted to question the same. The quashment application is, therefore, not maintainable and should be dismissed for‑ this reason also.

Mr. Sanaullah Qamar learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has referred to the case of Mst. Khatija v. The. State P L D 1978 Kar. 348. In this case it was held that if .the facts Stated in complaint do not constitute any offence, then proceedings would be liable to be quashed. This case does not appear to be applicable to the present proceedings which are not criminal proceedings. The above decision was given in a criminal case. As held above, the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner in Case No. 26 of 1982 were under Standing B Order 16(3) of the said Ordinance which did not constitute criminal proceedings. Hence the question of quashment does not arise.

For the above reasons this application is dismissed.

M. A. K.

Application 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.