1995 PLP 473 (PLC)

‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A(8)‑‑‑Non‑compliance of re‑instatement order of Court‑‑. Punishment for‑‑‑Court accepting grievance petition of employee against his termination, directed employer to reinstate employee with back benefits‑‑ Order of re‑instatement was to be complied with within 30 days, but employer within one week of reinstatement order again terminated service of employee and no termination order was served on the employee‑‑‑Such subsequent order of termination being mala fide, employee filed complaint in Labour Court under S. 25‑A(8) of the Ordinance, to the effect that order of Court for re‑instatement was not complied with by the employer‑‑‑Employer who was found guilty of non‑compliance of order of Labour Court was convicted and sentenced accordingly‑‑‑Employer who had acted in a mala fide manner and openly flouted order of the Court, having failed to show as to how his conviction was unjustified was rightly punished by Labour Court. Khurshid Ahmed Siddiqui for Appellant. Date of hearing: 14th March, 1995. Heard Mr. Khurshid Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate for the appellant. The facts of this case in brief are that one Mehmood Ahmed was working as a Weaver in the factory of the appellant known as Bashir Silk Factory. It is the case of Mehmood Ahmed that on 13‑6‑1989 Seth Bashiruddin got annoyed with him and verbally terminated his service. After grievance notice Mehmood Ahmed flied his grievance petition against the appellant. The learned 1st Sindh Labour Court allowed the grievance petition and directed re instatement of Mehmood Ahmed with back benefits. This decision was made on 2nd day of February, 1991. This order was to be complied with within 30 days. Instead of reinstating Mehmood Ahmed the appellant again terminated his services by letter dated 11‑2‑1991 within one week of the reinstatement order. This termination order was not served on Mehmood Ahmed. That shows that Mehmood Ahmed was not actually reinstated and he did not commence working in the factory at all. This order of termination being mala fide Mehmood Ahmed filed a complaint in the Labour Court under section 25‑A(8) that the order of the Labour Court for reinstatement was Pot given effect to by Seth Bashiruddin within the period specified and action be taken against under section 25‑A, clause (8) against Bashiruddin. This complaint was heard by the successor of the then Presiding Officer of Labour Court No.1 and she conducted the trial and after recording evidence found Bashiruddin to be guilty of non‑compliance of the order of the Labour Court. She accordingly convicted Bashiruddin and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for 15 days only. Against this conviction. Seth Bashiruddin has preferred this appeal.

2. I have heard Mr. Khurshid Ahmed Siddiqui at length and he is not able to show how the conviction is unjustified. It appears that Mehmood Ahmed was not actually reinstated as ordered by the Court but his services were again terminated after receipt of the orders of the Court which shows that the appellant acted in a mala fide manner openly flouting the order of the Labour Court.

3. Under the circumstances I can see no reason to interfere and the appeal is summarily dismissed. H.B.T./2444/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.