1995 PLP 221 (PLC)

S. Rais Ahmed Jafri for the Complainant. Malik Mehrban, Representative for Respondents. This is a complaint under section 22‑C of the IRO, 1969. Mainly the allegations against the respondents/accused persons are that they violated the orders dated 16‑9‑1991 passed by the learned Senior Member. of the Commission in Case No. 4‑A(130)/91 whereby the respondents were required to furnish personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000 each with two surety bonds in the like amount to keep the industrial peace and not to commit unfair labour practice for a period of one year. 2. Before proceeding further with the complaint, in order to receive the evidence ‑of the parties, I invited the learned Counsel/Representative of both the parties to argue on the point of maintainability of the complaint. Both the learned counsel Mr. S. Rais Ahmed Jafri, Advocate for the complainant and Malik Mehrban, Representative of the respondents were heard and the record of the case was examined with their help. I also intend to dispose of Case No.7(87)/92 which is an off shoot of this complaint, an application for feature of the surety bonds executed by the respondents on 2‑2‑1992 and this common order will dispose of both the Complaint No. 7(87)/92 and Application No. 7 (88)/92: 3. The order dated 16‑9‑1991 was passed with the specific directions that the respondents will execute personal bonds of Rs.50,000 each with two surety for a period of one year i.e. from 16‑9‑1991 to 15‑9‑1992 1 also find myself acquainted with the submissions of the representative of the respondents that under the provision of section 120 of the Cr.P.C. subsection (2), the time will commence from the date of order requiring execution of surties and not from the date of execution of the sureties itself. It will be convenient to re‑produce I the provision of section 120 of the Cr.P.C. for ready reference:‑‑ "Commencement of period for which security is required.--‑If any person, in respect of whom an order requiring security is made under section 106 or section 118 is at, the time such order is made, man sentenced to, or undergoing a sentence of imprisonment, the period for which such security is required shall commence on the expiration of such sentence. (2) In other cases such period shall commence on the date of such order unless the Magistrate, for sufficient reason, fixes a later date." 4. The‑ allegations contained in the complaint in para. No.4 are that the respondents on 30‑9‑1992 held a procession and meeting at Plat Form No.2 at Rawalpindi Railway Station and have committed other acts of unfair labour practice in violation of the orders of this Court dated 16‑9‑1991 which does not constitute the violation or contempt of the order dated 16‑9‑1991 as the period of the said order was expired on 15‑9‑1992, as discussed above. Consequently as a result of the above discussion I am of the view that the complaint in hand is not maintainable under section 22‑C of the IRO, 1969 as it does not constitute any violation of the orders of this Court dated 16‑9‑1991 passed in Case No.4‑A (130)/91, therefore, the Complaint No.7 (88)/92 is dismissed without any further proceedings and the Application No.7(87)/92 being also without any basis is also dismissed without any orders as to costs. H.B.T./1037/NIRC Complaint dismissed.