Find a Lawyer

Petition No. JM‑197 of 1983, decided on 11^th July, 1984.

‑‑‑Ss. 13(b) & 61‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 249‑A‑ Embezzlement of funds of union‑‑Complaint for‑‑Competence‑‑Only Registrar, Trade Unions or person authorised by him can lodge complaint‑‑Complaint lodged by un-authorised person‑‑Labour Court refusing to discharge person complained against under S.249‑A of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898‑‑Order of Labour Court in circumstances, set aside in revision by Appellate Tribunal and complaint having been brought without permission of Registrar, filed‑‑Revision‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S.38(3‑a).

P L D 1977 Kar. 183 distinguished.

Petitioner in person.

Abdul Rashid Qureshi for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 4th July, 1984.

The revision titled above gives information that the order, dated 16‑3‑1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi, whereby the petition of the petitioner for discharging him under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

2. A complaint under section 61 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 has been lodged by the respondent against the petitioner on the allegation of misappropriating funds of the union. The learned lower Court has relied upon P L D 1977 Kar. 183 but the same is distinguish able. It relates to the complaints brought for the non‑implementation of Court's orders, and not under section 61 for the embezzlement of Union's funds. Section 13(b) empowers the Registrar of Trade Unions to lodge or authorise any other person to lodge complaints for offences including the expending of funds of union in ‑contravention of the provisions of the constitution of the union concerned. Since this section empowers only the Registrar to lodge complaint or to authorise any other person to do so, no one without the authority of the Registrar can bring a complaint under section 61 of the industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The learned lower Court has remarked that if a competent authority has failed to lodge a complaint, any other citizen can come to the Court. Where law provides a procedure to do an act in a particular manner, the said act can be done only in that manner. This is not the case of the respondent that the Registrar was moved to lodge a complaint and that he refused. So, proper thing for the respondent was to move the Registrar to lodge or authorise him to lodge a complaint against the petitioner.

3. As a result, the revision is accepted and setting aside the impugned order of the learned lower Court, the complaint brought by the respondent without the permission of the Registrar, is filed.

A. E.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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