PERSONNEL MANAGER, FLORA TEXTILES LTD., KHURIANWALA Versus MAJID

This is a revision reporting that the notice dated 17‑9‑86 issued by the learned Labour Court No.4, Faisalabad is without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.

2. The learned Labour Court No.4, Faisalabad vide its order dated 13‑9‑86 called the petitioner by means of bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.5,000 for appearing before it on 30‑9‑86. The warrant was issued on 17‑9‑86, on the complaint of the respondent brought under section 25‑A(8) on the plea .of non‑implementation of the decision dated 10‑3‑‑86 recorded by the learned Labour Court No.4, Faisalabad. In the order dated 10‑3‑86 no period was fixed by the Labour Court within which the decision was to be implemented. According to section 25‑A, clause9 (a) a complaint can be brought by the worker himself if the order is not implemented within the time specified in the decision. In cases where no time is specified by the Court complaint can be brought by the Court whose order was not implemented. Since in the present case learned Labour Court No.4 had not specified the time, the respondent could not bring the complaint himself. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent is not tenable that since in clause 8 it is said that if the order is not implemented within a week, the employer commits offence and the complaint rightly brought by the respondent. Clause 8 does not deal with the proposition as to who has to bring the complaint. It contains the ingredients of the offence. According to this subsection the employer is liable to punishment of imprisonment upto one year or with fine upto Rs.5,000 if he fails to implement the decision either within one week or within the period specified in the decision. Subsection (9) in reality deals with the point as to in what circumstances a worker can bring complaint himself, and in what circumstances the complaint can be brought by the Court whose order has not been implemented. Learned counsel for the respondent has cited 1987 S C Monthly Review 31 but the same is distinguishable. The question involved in the case was whether the Registrar or a person authorised by him could bring the complaint or the complaint could be brought by a private person. It was held that there being no embargo in section 13, I. R.O. which dealt with the power of Registrar, on the powers of the Labour Court, the said Court was competent to take cognizance of the offence on the complaint lodged by a private party. Neither section 25‑A, clause 9 came under discussion nor the Supreme Court based its finding thereon, there the ruling is not germane to the present case. The learned Labour Court therefore has no jurisdiction to take cognizance in the complaint brought by the respondent.

3. As a result the revision is accepted and setting aside impugned order dated 13‑9‑86, the complaint is filed.

A. E. /323/Lb.P ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision accept