1982 PLP 897 (PLC(CS))

Abdul Hadi Farid v. Muhammad Irshad 1980 P L C 1108 and Saleem Aziz Siddiqui v. Labour Court No. VI, Hyderabad 1981 P L C 663 rel. A. T. Mahmood for Respondent. Muhammad Ahmed for the Complainant Date of hearing: 27th January, 1982. The record and ' proceedings in the complaint cases of (1) Goriman v. Muhammad Ismail, under section 25‑A (8), I. R. 0., and (2) Goriman v. Muhammad Ismail and 3 others under section 25‑A (8),

1. R. O., were summoned in the exercise of the sun more powers of revision of this Tribunal, for the purposes of satisfying myself as to the legality, correct ness and propriety of the proceedings and taking of cognizance of the said complaints by the learned Labour Court in view of the decisions of this Tribunal in the cases of Abdul Hadi Farid v. Muhammad Irshad (1980 P L C 1108) and Saleem Aziz Siddiqui v. Labour Court No. VI, Hydera bad (1981 P L C 663). The above two complaint cases' came to the notice of this Tribunal when a request was made by the leaned IVth Labour Court by his letter, dated 28th November, 1981 for the transfer of the case of Goriman v. Muhammad Ismail from his Court to the learned fifth Labour Court, where the connected case of Goriman v. Muhammad Ismail and 3 others was pending. Both these complaint cases having been filed in consequence of the decision, given on 13th April, 1981 by the learned Vth Labour Court, on the petition filed by Goriman directing Goriman's re‑instatement in service with full consequential benefits, The complaint case of Goriman v. Muhammad Ismail was filed on 3rd May, 1981 and it was asserted in his complaint by Goriman that notwithstanding the decision of the Court, dated 13th April, 1981, he had not been reinstated in service by respondent Muhammad Ismail nor he had been paid full back benefits. The learned Labour Court after holding a preliminary enquiry ordered process to issue against Muhammad Ismail on 19th July, 1981. The learned Labour Court framed a charge against Muhammad Ismail in respect of a‑n offence under section 25‑A (8),

1. R. O for failure to comply with the decision of the Court, dated 13th April, 1981. Subsequently, on 10th September, 1981 the said case was transferred on administrative grounds for disposal to the learned IVth Labour Court. Subsequent to transfer of the said case to the learned IVth Labour Court, on 25th October, 1981 Goriman filed his second case, in which besides Muhammad Ismail, three other Officers of the Pakistan Railways, where shown as accused. In this complaint it was asserted that notwithstanding the order of the Court, dated 13th April, 1981 directing his re‑instatement with full back benefits, he has not been re‑instated and on the contrary a fresh enquiry was held against him on the old charges and on the basis of such fresh enquiry he has been awarded the penalty of withholding of increment temporarily for a period of one year, The learned Labour Court, after recording the statement of Goriman under section 200, Cr. P. C., took cognizance of the case and directed process to issue against the three accused by its order, dated 14th November, 1981.

2. I have heard Mr. A. T. Mahmood for the accused, Muhammad Ismail and others, and Mr. Muhammad Ahmed, who appeared on behalf of the complainant Goriman. ‑t was not disputed by the learned counsel that the decision of the learned Labour Court, given on 13th April, 1981 does not specify the period within which the directions contained in the decision are to be implemented, and consequently, the decisions of the Tribunal in the cases of Abdul Hadi Farid and Saleem Aziz Siddiqui would be applicable to the instant cases. In view of the shove decisions, cognizance was wrongly taken by the learned Labour Court in both the complaint cases, which are the subject of these sun mote revisional proceedings. i.e., complaint No. 24/81 now pending before learned IVth Labour Court and complaint case No. 11/81 pending before A the Vth Labour Court, 1 would, therefore, set aside the order of the learned Labour Court regarding ,the taking of the cognizance by it of these 2 complaint cases and would quash the proceedings therein as being without lawful authority. It will of course be open to the complainant Goriman to approach the learned Vth Labour Court which had given the decision in application No. 100/80, to file a complaint, as provided in clause (b) of subsection i9) of section 25‑A, T. R. 0., for non‑compliance with a direction contained in the said decision.

3. In view of the above order, no necessity now arises for transfer of. Complaint Case No. 24/81, as requested by the learned IVth Labour Court. Appeal accepted.