MUHAMMAD KHAQAN Versus MUHAMMAD FAROOQ TEXTILE MILLS LTD

DECISION

This is a suo motu revision application under section 38(3‑a) of I.R.O. 1969, filed by the applicant /informant against an impugned order, dated 10‑2‑1985. passed by the Sind Labour Court No.IV, Karachi, .oho had dismissed the complaint of the applicant being not sustainable.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant being an office- bearer of Muhammad Farooq Textil Azad Mazdoor Union was dismissed by the respondents when they had intimation of an application before the Registrar of Trade Unions, dated 13‑12‑1984 for the formation as well as the registration of the said trade union.

3. The respondent establishment resisted the complaint by raising certain legal objections on the maintainability of the complaint besides the factual aspects. The first objection of the respondent establishment was that under section 9 of the Factories Act, a complaint can only be filed against the manager of the factory who is the proper person to answer the criminal liability because he was the person responsible for the administration, supervision which includes the power of appointments and dismissals. Secondly the complaint was resisted on the ground that the applicant was not legally entitled to invoke the A jurisdiction of the Labour Court and it was the Registrar Trade Unions who had powers to file the same under section 13(b) of I.R.O. 1969. Therefore, they claimed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.The learned Labour Court after hearing the parties had passed the impugned order, hence, this suo motu revision application.

5. I have heard Mr.Shafiq Qureshi, the learned Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Siddiq Mirza, the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent mills and have gone through the record and proceedings of the case. At the very outset I would hold that the impugned order of the learned Labour Court is thoroughly discussed and well reasoned, therefore, needs no interference. However, Mr.Shafiq Qureshi, the learned Advocate for the applicant in support of his revision application has contended that the machinery of criminal Court can be set in motion by the aggrieved person and he had relied on, the cases reported in 1983 P L C page 411 and P L D 1977 Karachi' at page 145. I see no force in the contentions of Mr. Shafiq Quraishi the learned Advocate for the applicant. The authorities relied upon by him are distinguishable and not applicable to the present easel which is under the relevant Labour Law.

6. For the reasons stated by me above, I would maintain the impugned order and dismiss the present suo Motu revision application accordingly.

A.E. /1108/Lb.S Revision dismissed.