1996 PLP 85 (PLC)

‑‑‑‑S. 53‑‑‑Complaint against unfair labour 'practice ‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑ Complaint against alleged unfair labour practice was filed by employee after a delay of about ten months and such along delay in filing complaint was totally unexplained‑‑‑Absence of any justified explanation in such a long delay in filing complaint, not only would create doubts, benefit of which would go to accused/employer, but also the very complaint itself would become doubtful and unreliable‑‑‑Argument, that because it was not a civil case, thus no limitation was provided, was misleading because it was not the provisions of Limitation Act under which such delay would become fatal, but was a basic and well‑settled principle of law‑‑‑No plausible or justified explanation having been tendered by complainant for filing delayed 'complaint, same was not maintainable. 1963 PLC 58 and 1968 PCr. LJ 392 ref. Malik Mansoor, Representative for Petitioner. Shah Muhammad Warraich for Respondents. This is a complaint filed under section 53 read with sections 15 and 16 of the S.R.O., 1969 against 12 respondents including the office -bearers of H.M.C. Awami Labour Union, Taxila and four Managers of the Establishment. The notices were served upon the. respondents who have appeared in person and have also filed their comments through their counsel.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their help has perused the record of the case. Before holding inquiry into the merits of the case I consider it proper to first deal with the legal objections as to the maintainability of the complaint, raised by the learned counsel for the respondent/accused.

3. The complaint is mainly based upon the allegation of unfair, labour practice, allegedly committed by the respondents on 4‑12‑1993, as narrated in para. No.4 of the complaint, while the instant complaint is filed on 4‑7‑1994, i.e. after a delay of about 10 months. Such along delay in the filing of this complaint is totally unexplained. The appellant has not uttered a single word in the complaint nor in the supporting documents. If there is no justified explanation to such delay, not only it creates doubts, the benefit of which goes to the accused, but also, the very complaint itself becomes doubtful and unreliable, especially in the circumstances where admittedly litigation in the other Courts were also pending between the parties. Support can be obtained from the case law reported in PLC 1963 Labour 58 and 1968 PCr.LJ

392. The arguments that because it is not a civil case, therefore, no limitation is provided for it is misleading. It is not the provisions of the Limitation Act under which such delay becomes fatal but is a basic and well‑settled principle of criminal law. Therefore, in my view this complaint, being no, tendering any plausible or justified explanation of such delay, is not maintainable and is, therefore, dismissed without, any further proceedings. '` H.B.T./237/NIRC Complaint dismissed.