1988 PLP 52 (PLC)

3. Mr. Aiwan has brought the complaint against Rukandin Khan and Mr. Anis Ahmed Khan as the employer, and the Manager for the purpose of enforcing criminal liability.

4. Mr. Aiwan has also argued that this registration certificate to which Mr. Jeelani has referred relates to the date of 4th February 1987. He has inspected the factory where information was supplied on 23‑10‑1986 that the Manager and the Occupier Mr. Rukandin Khan and Mr. Anis Ahmed.

5. To point out, to Mr. Aiwan Labour Inspector, if the question of law is raised whose criminal liability is for enforcement. In this context, the Court refers section 20 which provides that the employer of the Industrial and Commercial Establishment shall personally be held responsible for the proper and faithful observance ding Orders, whether or not, the workmen of such establishment, are employed through contractors.

6. The word personally is legally significant that liability and responsibility for the observance of the Standing Orders is that of employer alone, for the word personally should not have been used in section 20.

7. If the word employer is further stretched that it includes a person named under clause (a) of subsection (1) of section 9 of the Factory Act as Manager of the Factory.

8. In the first place the view of the Labour Court is that even if the Manager includes the employer and section 20 is to be read with this definition, still, the word personally is distinguishable for the purpose of criminal liability and for other rights under the provisions of Standing Orders the notified Manager be responsible in the forum under section 25‑A. But if this view is not reconciliable that Manager and Employer have the liability together still the person against whom the cognizance is desired is neither the employer nor the manager under the Factory Act, by means of notification.

9. To contend therefore that Mr. Aiwan was supplied different information, who was the manager, cannot improve the legal position.

10. The view of the Labour Court still is that personal liability is of employer. The Managers sometimes come and sometimes leave the employment. If the criminal liability is enforced against them on the basis that the cause of action arose on the date when he was notified manager under the provisions of Factory Act and until his appointment is not revoked the liability of the Manager may be there. But section 20 has made it much more significant his responsibility is by the use of word "personally".

11. If Mr. Zahid Akhtar is the employer entered in the form under the provisions of West Pakistan Shops and Establishment Ordinance 1969 and such renewal has been made from 1st of July 1985 to 30th June 1987, the cognizance against Mr. Rukandin will be bad in law.

12. Accordingly if there is no limitation in the criminal prosecution the Inspector of Factories can file complaint against proper person Mr. 2ahid Akhtar.

13. The Court also wants to put it clear, that the Inspector of Factories, should be very careful to file complaint after looking in the record who is the person registered as an employer or the manager as the law requires to follow, for any injury done to a third person for the time he takes in the trial and subsequently released or acquitted who is responsible for the compensation. The responsibility therefore is greater on the prosecution who want to set the law in motion. There are number of instances where complaints are not filed due to A breaches and violations. There are cases where the complaints are filed but only once in a year. The Court has taken judicial notice of this fact. The Court therefore is to examine every aspect that no injustice be done. Respondent is released under section 249‑A, in all complaints. A.E./998/Lb.S Accused released.