1988 PLP 469 (PLC)

‑‑‑Ss.54 & 55‑‑Complaint for contempt of Court, held, could be brought only by person adversely affec;ed and not by Lawyer‑‑Signature of Lawyer, in absence of signature of complainant, held, would not be sufficient to maintain complaint. Saeedur Rehman Farrukh for Petitioners. Muhammad Iqbal for Respondents Nos.l to

4. Nemo for Respondent No.5. Date of hearing: 21st May, 1986. This is a revision reporting that the order dated 9‑2‑1968 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.9, Multan is without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.

2. The facts are that on 3‑11‑1984 Mr. Humayun Shafiq, Petitioner No.1 issued an order which is Annexure 'A' that the Zonal Officer would make recommendations for the reduction of the staff. The District Manager issued Annexure 'B' directing some employees including respondent No.l to prepare inventory of the articles and to hand over the charge to him forthwith. This order was challenged in a petition under section 25‑A, in which application for ad interim stay was moved for restraining the petitioners from taking over the charge from the respondents and from terminating their services. On that application it was ordered that status quo be maintained and the next date was fixed as 21‑5‑1983. No order was passed extending the said order. In the pendency of the grievance petition the services of the respondents were terminated. They, therefore, brought complaint under sections 54 and 55 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 read with Order XXXIX, rule 2(3), C.P.C. for taking action against the petitioners for contempt of Court and for putting the respondents in the same position in which they were before the orders of removal of their service were passed. The learned lower Court vide the impugned order declined to take any punitive action but directed that the respondents should be put back in the same position in which they were before the orders of their termination were passed. After their services were terminated, only one of the respondents namely respondent No.l brought a separate grievance petition under section 25‑A challenging the order of removal from service. The complaint brought under sections 54 and 55 was from seven persons but their names and details are not given, except that of respondent No.l. None of them, except respondent No.1, signed the complaint. However, all of them had executed power of attorney in favour of Mr. Muhammad lqbal Khan, Advocate, who signed the complaint. It is apparent from sections 54 and 55 that complaint can be brought for the breach of any term of settlement or award or decision, but in the present case the stay order passed by the learned lower Court is not covered by any of the three categories. The orders cannot be said to be a settlement or an award. Needless to say that a settlement can be arrived at and an award can. be passed where an industrial dispute has been raised. Admittedly, no industrial dispute as contemplated by section 43 and sections 26 to 32 was brought. The impugned order was not a decision but only a direction to maintain status quo, for its violation therefore no complaint under sections 54 and 55 can be brought. A petition under section 38(5) could have been made to this Tribunal or a complaint under section 25‑A(8) to some other Labour Court or to a Magistrate as required by clause (9) thereof could be brought.

3. The other thing is that even if it be said that .the learned lower Court had jurisdiction to take action for the violation of the stay order, there being no provision of putting back the respondents in their previous position, such an order was beyond the jurisdiction of the learned lower Court. Where a stay order has been violated and in its continuance the person has been removed from service or the act the doing of which has been stayed, has been done, it can be challenged separately or in cases where C.P.C. applies an application under section 144 can be made. Respondent No.l was wise enough to challenge the order of termination in a separate petition under section 25‑A. The other respondents did not do so. The other thing is that the stay order was not existing on the date on which the services of the respondents were terminated and this thing has been admitted by the learned lower Court itself in the impugned order. It is said in the impugned order that the stay order was inadvertently not extended by the Court. The stay order was passed till next date, which was expressly fixed and thus the order came to an end on the said date since it was not thereafter extended. So, no stay order was existing and this is another ground for which the impugned order is without jurisdiction.

4. Even the complaint was not competent on the ground that the remaining six persons had not signed it nor their names are mentioned in the complaint. Needless to say that such a complaint can be brought only by the persons adversely affected and not by any lawyer. The fact, therefore, that the lawyer had also put his signatures on the complaint is not sufficient.

5. As a result, the revision is accepted and setting aside the impugned order of the learned lower Court, the complaint is rejected. A.E./117/Lb.S Revision accepted.