1988 PLP 85 (PLC)

Shaukat Ali A. Nanji for Appellants. S. Yousuf Ali for Respondent. Date of hearing: 13th April, 1987. This is an appeal filed by the appellants against a conviction order, dated 29‑5‑1985 under section 25‑A(8) and (9) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. I, Karachi, who had sentenced both the appellants to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent complainant, namely, Hakimuddin was charge‑sheeted for two offences i.e. in subordination and go‑slow. A domestic enquiry was conducted against him in which he was found guilty of the same and subsequently, he was dismissed from service resulting in the filing of a grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969. On 5‑7‑1976, the Sind Labour Court No. III, Karachi, had set aside the dismissal order of the respondent and directed his re‑instatement in service with full back benefits. Against this order, the appellants filed an appeal before this Tribunal which was allowed on 20‑12‑1976 and the dismissal order of the respondent was restored. Thereafter, the respondent, Hakimuddin, had challenged the order of this Tribunal before the High Court of Sind and it, vide order dated 12‑9‑1983 had set aside the order of this Tribunal and the matter was remanded to the Labour Appellate Tribunal for further enquiry and to examine the allegation and to see if the respondent was guilty of misconduct as per evidence on record, or not. Thereafter, on 23‑7‑1984, this tribunal had dismissed the appeal of the appellants in view of the bar contained in section 15(4) of the Standing Orders Ordinance. Then, the respondent‑complainant filed a complaint under section 25‑A(8) and (9) of I.R.O. 1969 against the appellants for non‑compliance of the Courts orders. The appellants did not resist the complaint but instead had filed a stay order, granted by the High Court and had prayed that in view of the order, the complaint /petition be disposed of.

3. Arguments of both the parties were heard at length. It is an admitted position that the order of the Courts were not complied with and even a statement at Bar was also given by the appellant that the stay order passed by the High Court was a conditional one and the same was no more operating.

4. It is abundently clear that the appellants did not contest the petition by filing any reply or objections. Their conduct shows that they deliberately failed to comply with the orders of the courts as they neither re‑instated the respondent nor paid him the legal benefits and other dues. In view of this admitted and established position, the learned Labour Court has rightly held the appellants guilty and sentenced them under section 25‑A(8) and (9) of the I.R.O. 1969. However, I would take a lenient view and would convert the sentence A to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each to the appellants, into payment of a fine of Rs. 1,000 (rupees one thousand only) by each appellant forthwith before rising of the Court. Otherwise, both the appellants shall suffer simple imprisonment for one year each. The amount of fine be deposited in this Tribunal by the above two appellants. Judgment accordingly. S.Q./1019/Lb.S Order accordingly.