1978 PLC 2 (PLP)

I. G. I. Staff Union hereinafter referred to as a petitioner-Union has brought the under consideration application against the Management of International General Insurance Company of Pakistan Limited, 56-Shahrah-i Quaid-i-Azam, Lahore for initiating contempt of Court proceedings against the respondent. The application purports to be for contempt of Court read with section 36-E of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.

2. It is alleged in the application that in a petition filed by the petitioner Union against the respondent under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance a stay order was issued by this Court on 8th November 1975 restraining the respondent from dismissing, discharging, termination or other wise punishing any office-bearer of the petitioner Union in violation of section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. It is further alleged that on 11th November 1975 the members of the petitioner Union reached the office as usual, they were restrained to join the duty and in this manner the respondent has committed the contempt of the Court.

3. The application has been resisted by the respondent who has pleaded that application was not competent under section 36-E of the I. R. O. as no decision or order of the Court under section 36-D bad been violated. It is further maintained by the respondent that no contempt of Court has been committed by the respondent because the order passed by the Court was to the effect that provisions of section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 would not be violated. No such, violation has been done by the respondent. Retrenchment was not a punishment within the meaning of section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. It has also been contended that application under section 34 out of which this petition arises is not maintainable because the Union cannot espouse the cause of individual workman.

4. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length about the maintainability of the under consideration application. Obviously section 36-E of tile Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, has no application in this case because there has been no failure on the part of the respondent, to comply with a direction or a decision under section 36-B or under section 36-D of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.

5. As regards the alleged violation of section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 196), the proper course is to file a complaint under section 60 ibid if the employer contravenes the provisions of the section

47. Contempt of Court proceedings in the nature of the under consideration petition are not warranted. Moreover retrenchment has not been prohibition under section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. In the Secretary, East Pakistan R. T. C. v. E. P. R. T. C. Workers' Union (1971PLC24) it was held that when retrenchment of redundant worker was purpose during pendency of industrial dispute an application seeking permission of Court, under section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance was not maintainable.' Similar view has been taken in 1971 P L C 70.

6. It is, therefore, concluded that even on merit no contempt of court has taken place.

7. In the light of what has been said above the under consideration application is dismissed.