1988 PLP 602 (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑Ss.25‑A & 38(5)‑‑Complaint for violation of order of Labour Court Establishment alleged to have passed termination order in violation of stay order granted by Labour Court‑‑Presence of official of respondent, his counsel or representative not recorded in stay order‑ No allegation that stay order was served upon such official before he passed termination order‑‑No criminal action, held, could be taken against respondent official in circumstances. Umda Begum v. Saad Saud Jan CSP and others P L D 1962 (W.P.) Lah. 306 held not applicable. Mumtaz Akhtar for Petitioners. Date of hearing: 15th June, 1986. This is a complaint under section 38(5) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for proceeding against the respondents for violating the stay order granted by the Labour Court on 12‑5‑1983 and extended on 29‑7‑1984‑.

2. The services of the petitioners were terminated vide order dated 6‑7‑1984. The order of termination was passed by respondent No.3. The complaint and the stay orders dated 12‑5‑1983 and 29‑7‑1984 do not disclose if respondent No.3 had the knowledge of the stay orders on the date on which he passed the orders of termination of services. In either of the stay orders the presence of respondent No.3 or his counsel or representative is not recorded. The order dated 12‑5‑1983 shows that the representative of respondent No.l was present. The representative was respondent No.5 in that case. Since he represented only respondent No.l, it cannot be presented that respondent No.3 whose presence is not recorded got the knowledge of the stay orders. Likewise in the order dated 29‑7‑1984 the presence of respondent No. 3 or his representative or his counsel is not recorded. The complaint does not contain any allegation that the stay order dated 12‑5‑1983 had been duly served upon respondent No.3 before he had passed the order of termination of the services of the petitioners. No copy of any notice of the order-dated 12‑5‑1983 is with the complaint. Learned counsel for the petitioners has cited Umda Begum v. Saad Saud Jan CSP and others reported in P L D 1962 (W . P.) Lah. 306 and has argued that once a stay order is issued, it remains in force till specifically recalled. But the question involved in the present complaint is not only whether the stay order was existing or not on the date when order of termination was passed, but the real point on which the complaint fails is that there is no allegation even in the complaint that the stay order issued on 12‑5‑1983 had been served upon respondent No.3 before he had issued the termination orders. As discussed above, the order dated 12‑5‑1983 does not show that on the said date respondent No.3 who had passed the order of termination was present in person or had been represented by any representative or counsel. So no criminal action can be taken against respondent No.3. So far as the other respondents are concerned, since none of them issued the orders of termination, it cannot be said that they violated the stay order issued on 12‑5‑1983.

3. As a result of what has been said above, the complaint is dismissed in limine. A.E. /349/Lb.P Complaint dismissed.