2023 PLP 244 (PLC)

MUNAWAR HUSSAIN TOORI, MEMBER.

That the brief facts of the case/appeal are that Muhammad Jameel Shahid (hereinafter called Respondent) approached to the Commission for the redressal of his grievance by alleging that the Establishment of Pakistan post office (hereinafter called Appellant), is victimizing him as he is active member of All Pakistan Postal Circle/Regional Officers Employees Union, and also performing duties as Circle General Secretary of supra union; due to his lawful trade union activities the Establishment (respondents in petition and appellants in the instant appeal) issued a show-cause notice dated 04.05.2021 against him; by impugning that show-cause notice the respondent has filed a petition under section 31 and read with section 54 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, vide bearing No. 4A (36) 2021-L before single bench of this Commission.

2. The Single Bench of this Commission granted the injunctive order dated 25.05.2021 in the above mentioned petition in favour of the respondent by stating that, "in the meanwhile, the respondents are restrained from passing any final adverse order qua services of the petitioner till next date of hearing". However the appellants terminated the services of the respondent on 11.10.2021 during the operation of restraining order and pendency of supra petition. Against this order the respondent moved the contempt petition bearing No 07 (69)/2021-L before this Commission. In which the single bench has passed the order by holding that the termination order dated 11.10.2021 of the respondent is illegal and same is hereby set-aside and direction was given to the appellant that the services of the respondent be restored and bring him back on the same position as he was holding before 25.05.2021 and submit implementation report on the next date of hearing i.e. 08.03.2022 before the single bench of this Commission.

3. The appellants have impugned the order 8-3-2022 before this full bench of this commission through instant appeal by raising different question of facts and law.

4. Before discussing upon the merits of the appeal it is pertinent to mention here that main petition bearing No. 4A (36)/2021-L and Contempt Petition No. 7(69)/2021-L are still pending are yet to be disposed.

5. Arguments of appellants heard and record perused.

6. What is contempt? it is to disobey or disregard an order, direction or process of Court/Commission/Tribunal which a person is legally bound to obey; willful breach of an undertaking given to a judicial forum having the authority to proceed against the contemnor ; any act intended to or which tends to bring the authority of Court or the administration of law into disrespect or disrepute and to obstruct, interfere, or prejudice the process of law or the due course of any judicial proceedings falling within the category of contempt of Court. In contempt of Court/Commission there must be invovled some "act done or writing published calculated to bring a Court or judge of a Court into contempt or to lower his authority" of something "calculated to obstruct or interfere with the due course of justice or lawful process of the Court. The Purpose of contempt proceeding is not to wreak vengeance but to vindicate honor of the Competent judicial/quasi-judicial forum, so as to keep the public confidence in these judicial forums undiminished. The disobedience of prohibition order or violation of stay order is crime. Mere knowledge of existence of such order is enough to constitute contempt proceedings irrespective of service of order no excuse can be acceptable in this term and persons not parties to the case but fully aware of Commission/Court's order may be held liable to contempt of Court if they willfully disobey such order. Hence, the contempt proceedings having vast status, in which the Commission an pass order which Commission judiciously deems appropriate including the reinstatement of the employee. The contemnors must have remained fail to get relief from the court unless they prove themselves innocent and must have come up with clean hands. In the instant case the contempt petition is still pending for adjudication and no final order has been passed.

7. There are allegedly five contemnor impleaded in the contempt petition, but the instant appeal has been preferred by the Postmaster General (PMG), Deputy Postmaster General, and Assistant Director, moreover the memo. of appeal bears signature of single appellant has signed the appeal out of three appellants mentioned in appeal. The alleged two contemnor Nos. 3 and 5 have not challenged the impugned order. In addition to that, the affidavit appended with the instant appeal is filed by a person showing the designation (Deputy Post Master General) instead of the name and address of the person. It is well settled law that the name of the applicant in affidavit must be filled.

8. The Appellants have already taken/raised all the legal as well as factual points including the applicability of the Labour laws (IRA, 2012) as well as the order impugned in instant appeal as coram non judice in the written reply of petition. All these points/objection have been discussed at length by the learned member in the impugned order and gave anxious consideration and on which the well-reasoned order has been passed. There is no other fresh or new law point and factual discrepancy has been pointed out by the appellant in the impugned order. Hence there is no need to enumerate the same at this forum. Since, there is no force in the arguments advanced by the appellants and they have totally failed to point out any paucity neither on law nor on factual points. The appellant firstly should implement the order of the Commission and should join the contempt proceedings and prove that the violation of the order of the commission was not deliberate.

9. For what has been discussed above, appellants have failed to point out as to how the impugned order dated 14.02.2022, passed by the learned Member (Single Bench) is the consequence of error by law and illegal or without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction. The upshot of the above discussion is that the learned Member Single Bench has acted lawfully by issuing direction to the appellants to implement the order dated 14.02.2022 and to submit the implementation report.

10. In view of the above, instant appeal is not maintainable; hence dismissed with no order as to cost. MQ/2/NIRC Appeal dismissed.