1981 PLP 255 (SCMR)

DORAB PATEL, J.-The petitioner was employed in Grandlays Bank and claims to be the Secretary-General of the Employees' Union of that Bank. Now, as Secretary-General of his Union, he had, on the 27th of Member, 1976, called a meeting of the Union for the 30th of December, 1976, and for obvious reasons, the Management of the Bank objected to calling of a meeting on the penultimate day of the calendar year. But, as the petitioner persisted in calling his meeting, he was charge-sheeted on the 4th of January, 1977 for misconduct. Therefore, he immediately filed a complaint before the National Industrial Relations Commission against the respondents 2 to 6 under section 53-A read with section 15 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. This complaint was dismissed by the learned Chairman on 9th February, 1978 with the following observations :- "It is on the day that previously the Bank used to permit the Union to hold meetings in the ball, but it is also clear that this time the Bank authorities objected to the holding of the meeting on the ground that it was being held on the last closing day of the year and it was like that progress of their work will be interfered with. It is mentioned in the para wise comments that they tried to persuade the petition and his colleagues to postpone the meeting for two days, but they did not succeed." The petitioner, therefore, had challenged this order in a writ petition in the Sind High Court, but as the petition was dismissed in limine on 18th March 1979, he has filed this petition for leave. No exception whatever can be taken to the observations of the learned Chairman, which we have just quoted. This is obvious and when was pointed out to learned counsel that the conduct of the petitioner in convening a meeting of the employees' Union on the 30th of December, 1976 was bound to have disrupted the proper functioning of any bank, he submitted that he would press the petition on the ground that the procedure follow by the learned Chairman of the National Industrial Relations Commission was in contravention of the express provisions of Regulation 20 of the National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973 (hereinafter called the said Regulations). This regulation insofar as it is relevant reads :-- "

20. Postponement of issue of process.--4.11 The Commission, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which it is authorised to take cognizance, may, if it thinks fit, for reasons to be recorded in writing, postpone the issue of process for compelling the attendance of the person complained against, and either enquire into the case itself or direct an inquiry or investigation to be made by a Labour Court, a Junior Labour Court, a Magistrate, a Police Officer, or such other person as it thinks fit, for the purpose of ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the complaint." Now, as to the procedure about which learned counsel complained, on receiving the complaint, the learned Chairman bad not issued any summons to respondents Nos. 2 to 6, who had directed to them to submit their comments. They had complied with this order and it would appear that the comments thus submitted by the said respondents were supported by documentary evidence (which is not before us). And, as the complaint of the petition was rejected on the basis of the explanation thus submitted by the said respondents, learned counsel's contention was that the procedure thus adopted by the learned Chairman was illegal. But, in support of this sweeping proposition, he could only refer us to a judgment reported in Khadim Hussain v. The State (1970 P Cr. L J 56). Learned counsel's reliance on Khadim Hussain's case assumes that Regulation No. 20 has to be construed in the same manner as section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, even if we make this assumption, the judgment cited does not help the petitioner's case, because in Khadim Hussain's case, a Magistrate had issued summons and had at the same time examined evidence, and his order was struck down, because he had issued summons and at the same time held an enquiry. But, in the instant case, the learned Chairman held an enquiry without issuing any summons, therefore, the judgment cited has no relevance whatever to the instant case, and, on the other hand, we are satisfied that the procedure adopted by the learned Chairman is in accordance with the provisions of Regulation No. 20 of the said Regulations. In these circumstances, it is not necessary to for us to examine the validity of learned counsel's assumption that Regulation No. 20 has to be construed in the same manner as section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petition is without merit and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.