1993 PLP 180 (PLC)

Ch. Altaf Hussain for Respondents. Date of hearing: 12th October, 1992. The petitioners in the present revision petition assail the legality of an order passed by the Punjab Labour Court No. 8, Bahawalpur on 30‑5‑1992 whereby the petition filed by them under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

2. The petitioners are the Chairman and General Secretary while the respondents are the Joint Secretary and Cashier of the Mazdoor Ittifaq Union, Adam Sugar Mills Ltd., Christian. On 8‑2‑1992 the respondents filed a complaint against the petitioners in the Punjab Labour Court No. 8, Bahawalpur under section 61 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 on the allegation, that they had‑misappropriated/embezzled funds of the above trade union. On the basis of the preliminary evidence adduced by the respondents, the petitioners were summoned and charged for an offence under section 61 of the industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. They, however, pleaded not guilty to the charge. While the prosecution evidence was still in progress, the petitioners filed an application under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C. praying for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the same had not been filed by the Registrar of Trade Unions or any other person authorised by him, as envisaged by section 13(b) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The learned Labour Court by the impugned order, however, dismissed the application of the petitioners observing that the complaint had been competently filed by the respondents. Reliance was placed on Muhammad Akram and another v. Second Sindh Labour Court (1987 SCMR 31). Hence this revision petition.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the application filed under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C. has relied on the provisions of section 13(b) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 according to which one of the powers and functions of the Registrar would be "to lodge, or authorise any person to lodge, complaints, with the Labour Court or Commission for action, including prosecution against trade Unions, employers, workers or other persons for any alleged offence or any unfair labour practice or violation of any provisions of this Ordinance or for expending the funds of a trade union in contravention of the provisions of its constitution." He has argued that since the Registrar neither himself lodged the complaint nor authorised the respondents to do so, the complaint was incompetently filed.

4. Section 61 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 runs as under:‑ "

61. Any officer or any other employee of a registered trade union, guilty of embezzlement or misappropriation of trade union funds shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and shall also be liable to a fine, which shall not exceed the amount found by the Court to have been embezzled or misappropriated, Upon realisation, the amount of fine may be reimbursed by the Court to the trade union concerned." The above section, as is manifest, does not contain any prohibition from taking cognizance of the offence except on a complaint lodged by the Registrar or any person authorised by him. Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was interpreted in the Supreme Court case, referred to above, as follows:‑ "Section 13 is concerned only with the powers of the Registrar under the I.R.O. It purports to control him alone and not the Labour Court. Merely because it is one of the functions of the Registrar and he has been empowered to lodge or authorise any person to lodge complaint with the Labour Court, does not necessarily operate as a clog on the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to take cognizance of an offence on the complaint of any other person." The above observations apply to this case also with equal force. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Labour Court is unexceptionable.

5. In the result, I find no ground for interference and dismiss this revision petition. A.A./743/Lb.P Revision dismissed.