1978 PLP 432 (PLC)

M. L. Shahant for Petitioner. A. H. Rizvi for Respondents. Date of hearing: 26th November 1977. This order will Opine of two Transfer Applications bearing Nos. 230/77 and 231/77. The fir seeks the transfer of two Criminal Cases No. 116 and 117/74filed against the petitioner under section 36‑E and sections 54 and 55 of the i. R. O., 1969 from Sind Labour Court No. III at Karachi where as the latter similarly prays for the transfer of two Applications Bearing Nos. 148 and 150/77 filed against the petitioner under section 51, I. R. O., 1969 in the same Labour Court No. III at Karachi.

2. Briefly, the facts giving rise to these matters are that the services of the two respondents Nos. 2 and 3, Umer Muhammad son of not known and Abdul Rashid son of not known were terminated by the petitioner on 16‑6‑64 but they were, re‑instated in service by an order of the Junior Labour Court dated 15‑8‑1974. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order in Labour Court No. III which was rejected by that Court. Never theless, these two respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were not re‑instated in their service with the petitioner and consequently, they filed two complaints against the petitioner under section 36‑B and sections 34 and 55, I. R. O. on 18‑9‑1974. Process was issued and charges framed by the Labour Court No III where these two complaints had been filed. The petitioner then filed Constitutional Writ Petition No. 1;537/74 in the High Court at Karachi and got a stay order therefrom t but on 1‑i1‑19'6 the present acting Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Agha Ali Harder dismissed this writ petition and vacated the stay order. Thereafter, on 24‑12‑1976 the aforesaid respondents Nos. 2 and 3 applied to the Labour Court No. III to proceed with these two complaints and accordingly a fresh process was issued by this Court against the petitioner on 20‑1‑1977 On 26‑1‑1977 the petitioner appeared before the said Labour Court No. III sad, at his request the petitioner was allowed by that Court to continue on the same P. R. Bond originally furnished by him. Never theless, the petitioner on 3‑2‑1977, within a week of being allowed to continue on the same P. R. Bond and before any progress had been made in the complaint case, robed up to this Tribunal with a transfer application being Application No. 44/77, which was dismissed by my predecessor on 25‑3‑1977 for non‑prosecution. The petitioner then filed before this Tribunal a second transfer application being Application No. 157/77 filed on 21‑5‑1977. This transfer application was heard by my predecessor and dismissed on merits on 23‑6‑1977. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a third Transfer Application before this Tribunal on 18‑7‑1977 but this time he filed, in actual fact, two transfer applications being Transfer Application No. 230/77 in regard to the aforesaid two criminal complaints pending against him and transfer applica tion No. 231/77 in regard to the application pending against him under section 51,

1. R. O. being Applications Nos. 148 and 150/77 then pending before the Labour Court No III against the petitioner and at the instance of the aforesaid two respondents for payment of their back benefits. It is these two transfer applications that form the subject‑matter of this present order.

3. I have heard Mr. M. L. Shahani, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. A. H. Rizvi appearing on behalf of the two respon dents. I have also carefully perused the lengthy explanations dated 9th June, 1977 and 25th July, 1977 submitted by the learned Presiding Officer, Mr. Syed Nasir Hussain Jafri of Sind Labour Court No. III whose remarks had been called for by this Tribunal on these transfer applications.

4. It was pointed out by Mr. A. H. Rizvi that two previous transfer applications submitted on behalf of the petitioner to this Tribunal In this very matter being Case No, KAR 4.4/77 and Case No. KAR 157/77 had already been dismissed by this Tribunal on 25‑3‑77 and again on 23=6‑

77. However, Mr. Shahani countered this submission by stating that his grievances against the Presiding Officer of Sind Labour Court No. III so far as the present two transfer applications are concerned began and commenced as from 2E‑6‑77,1. e. 5 days after the dismissal of the second Transfer Application No. 157/77 by this Tribunal on 23‑6‑

77. Mr. Shahani then proceeded to elaborate upon these alleged grievances.

5. His first grievance related to certain adverse remarks made against him and his clients by the Presiding Officer of the Sind Labour Court No. III on 28‑6.77, 29.6‑77, 3‑7‑77 and 10‑7‑

77. It is alleged by Mr. Shahani that on these four dates the learned Judge openly stated in Court that "this Court is not bound to dispense Justice to the petitioner." To me it seems highly improbable that an experienced sound and responsible judicial Officer like Mr. Syed Nasir Hussain Jafri would utter such words in open Court. Apart from this, this Judicial Officer in the explanation submitted by him to this Tribunal on 9‑6‑77 has plainly stated "throughout the proceedings I endeavoured to act honestly and impartially and I never uttered even a single word which could help any party in reading my mind:" Both the explanations submitted by this Judge on 9‑6‑77 and again on 25‑7‑77 must be read together. Indeed, when submitting his second explanation of 25‑7‑77 this Judge attached a copy of his previous explanation of 9‑6‑77 with the words "copy enclosed for ready reference." Consequently, I am not inclined to attach much importance to this first grievance of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

6. Mr. Shahani's next grievance concerned certain incidents that occurred in the Court of this presiding Officer of Sind Labour Court No III on 10‑7‑

77. It is alleged by Mr. Shahani that on that date the learned Presiding Officer rebuked the petitioner and his advocate and dealt unfairly with them. In paragraph 2 of his second explanation of 25‑7‑77 this Presiding Officer has set out in detail the happenings in his Court on the four dates referred to by Mr. Shahani ending with 10‑7‑

77. He has concluded this paragraph by saying, "Mr. Shahan! has filed these transfer applications making false and contemptuous allegations against me." This judicial officer has ended both his explanations by pointing out how difficult it would be fox Presiding Officers to work under the thumb of persons appearing on behalf of litigants, if such persons are encouraged to impute the chastity of any Presiding Officer. In view of all this I am afraid I cannot accept Mr. Shahani's version of the incidents that occurred in the Court below as between him and the Presiding Officer on 10‑7‑77.

7. Mr. Shahani further contended that on 22‑5‑77 when these matter were fixed for filing of written‑statement in the Court below, both parties were absent, yet the lower Court instead of dismissing the causes declared the petitioner as ex parts and later granted restoration but on payment of heavy costs of Ra.

200. As mentioned above; the learned Presiding Officer of Labour Court No III in para 2 of his explanation of 15‑7‑77 has explained in detail the events of 22 6‑77 and succeeding dates and in my opinion this explanation serves to repel the levelling of any charge of bias against this officer. Besides, the date 22‑6‑77 is prior to 23-6‑77 on which date the petitioners second transfer application was rejected by my predecessor.

8. After a fairly lengthy hearing of these two transfer application covering almost two hours, I reached the conclusion that there was no substance in these two applications. The rulings relied upon by Mr. Shahani, specially the judgment of the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Hamood‑ur‑Rahman, reported in P L D 1973 S C 327 emp hasizes the reasonableness of any apprehension or fear in the mind of a party that he will not obtain justice from the Presiding Officer of the Court concerned. Accordingly. I announced short order in Court rejecting these two transfer applications. Mr. a Shahani then arose and requested me to grant him two weeks stay in the enforcement of this order so as to enable him to file a writ petition in the High Court of Sind against this order. But, the cases giving rise to these two transfer applications are already 3/1/2 Tears old and as it seems to me that no further delay can be brooked. Hence, while dismissing these two transfer applications I decline to make any order of stay.