2013 PLP 110 (PLC)

FAROOQ ALI CHANNA, J.

In this Constitutional petition the petitioner has sought directions to the respondent No. 1 to proceed with the complaint filed by the petitioner against the respondents Nos.2 and 3 and the directions to the respondents Nos.2 and 3 to immediately comply with the orders passed by respondent No.1, whereby the petitioner was reinstated in service with all back benefits. Notice of the petition was served upon the respondents, but none appeared.

2. The background of filing of this petition is that the petitioner was the employee of the respondent No.3, but later on he was dismissed from service. He challenged the dismissal order before the respondent No. 1, which was allowed and the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated with all back benefits. The respondent No.3 filed appeal from the order of respondent No.1 before the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal where order dated 1-3-2010 was passed, whereby the order of the respondent No.1 was suspended till further orders. This order under section 55 subsection (9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2008 was for the period of 20 days, on expiry of such period the order became ineffective, but yet the respondent concerned, did not allow the petitioner to resume his duty, therefore, the petitioner filed complaint under section 41 subsection (6) of Industrial Relations Act, 2008 before the respondent No.1, who after recording the statement of the petitioner under section 200, Cr. P. C. did not take further action and passed the order dated 17-4-2012, adjourning the matter sine-die till final disposal of appeal, pending before the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, which order is impugned in this petition.

3. I have heard Mr. Khalid Imran, Advocate for the petitioner. He has contended that the order of suspending the operation of the reinstatement of the petitioner passed by the respondent, No.1, had justified the appellate tribunal to decide the appeal within 20 days and if the appeal was not decided by him within stipulated, period, the order of the tribunal suspending the operation should have been vacated, on the expiry of that period. He has further contended that in the instant matter after the expiry of 20 days period the appeal has not yet been decided, as such the order of suspending the operation of order of respondent No.1, in terms of. section 55 subsection (9) became infructuous and stands vacated, but despite the above legal position, the respondents Nos.2 and 3 are not allowing the petitioner to resume his duty, therefore, the petitioner has filed complaint under section 41 subsection (6) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2008, and the respondent No.1 instead of. issuing the process against the contemnors i.e. respondents Nos.2 and 3 adjourned the case sine die, which is inequitable and against the natural justice.

4. I have considered the arguments and perused the record, which reflects that after filing the complaint under section 41 subsection (6) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2008, the statement of the complainant under section 200, Cr.P.C. was recorded, and thereafter the respondent No.1 passed the order, adjourning the case sine die till the appeal is decided by the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi.

5. Under the principles of natural justice, it is the duty of the Court, which entertain the complaint, to decide the same considering the statements and documents produced by the complainant during preliminary inquiry instead of keeping the same pending for indefinite period and withholding relief sought for, on account of some other proceedings, though may be related with the point involved in the complaint, pending in some other Courts/Tribunals. Such order of adjourning the complaint sine-die is nothing but to defeat the administration of justice and depriving of the rights of a person who approached, the Court with hopes of redressal of his grievances. The respondent.No.1 while hearing the case was bound to decide the same by independent application of mind free from unreasonable outside circumstances. Furthermore, it is settled law that if any kind of civil proceedings are pending adjudication before any forum, the criminal proceedings are not barred and both civil and criminal proceedings shall proceed independently and simultaneously, if, from the statements recorded and documents produced during preliminary enquiry an offence appears to have been committed.' Therefore, the impugned order dated17-4-2012, passed by respondent No. 1, adjourning the complaint sine-die, is set aside. The trial Court i.e. respondent No.1 is directed to decide the complaint of petitioner strictly on merits in accordance with law, considering the relevant provisions of law, statements recorded and documents, if produced by the petitioner during preliminary inquiry.

6. With these directions, this Constitutional petition stands disposed of. MWA/Z-10/K???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingl