MUHAMMAD RIZWAN Versus SMITH KLINE AND FRENCH OF PAKISTAN

DECISION

In this application the applicant has invoked the suo motu Revisional Jurisdiction of this Tribunal under section 38(3-a) of the I.R.O., 1969, in order to examine the legality, correctness and propriety of the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No. III at Karachi, dated 27-1-1990.

2. I have heard Mr. Ali Amjad, learned Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Mahmood Abdul Ghani, learned representative for the respondents.

3. The brief facts of the case appear to be that the applicant was removed from service. He riled grievance petition before the learned Labour Court which was allowed by the learned Labour Court vide order dated 30-9-1989 and the applicant was ordered to be reinstated with full back benefits and the order was to be implemented within thirty days. The respondents are alleged to have failed to implement the order within the specified time and therefore the applicant filed complaint under subsection (8) of section 25-A of I.R.O., 1969 before the learned Labour Court. The learned Labour Court issued notices to the respondents -company as well as other respondents who are officers of respondent No. 1 which is a company and therefore liable under section 63 of I.R.O., 1969. The respondents contended before the learned Labour Court that the appeal was filed against the order of learned Labour Court before this Tribunal where application for stay was made and where stay was granted only to the extent that back benefits were ordered to be deposited in the Tribunal. They, however, contended that on 26-11-1989 they issued order informing the applicant that he need not report for duty but he would be treated as if on duty and he would be paid salary pending decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal.

4. The applicant had submitted duty report on 5-10-1989, which was replied by the respondents by their letter, dated 8-10-1989, wherein he was informed that the respondents had filed appeal and moved application for Stay Order and they would revert on the subject by the end of month. Obviously this letter cannot be considered to be compliance of the order of the learned Labour Court. The order, dated 26-11-1989 relied upon by the respondents was passed after the expiry of the period of one month given to the respondents for compliance by the learned Labour Court. Mr. Mahmood Abdul Ghani was unable to produce any authority to show that by filing appeal without obtaining Stay Order the operation of the order of the Labour Court would automatically be stayed. Prima facie the respondents appear to have committed offence punishable under subsection (8) of section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969.

5. The appeal filed by the respondents against the original order of learned Labour Court has been decided today and order of the learned Labour Court with regard to reinstatement of the applicant has been maintained, whereas order with regard to the payment of back benefits has been withheld subject to result of the fresh enquiry that may be held by respondent No. 1 against the applicant.

6. Under the circumstances the order passed by the learned Labour Court dismissing the complaint of the applicant under section 203, Cr.P.C. was neither legal nor correct and is set aside. The learned Labour Court is directed to bring the case on the file and issue the process for appearance against the respondents to face trial under subsection (8) of section 25-A read with section 63 of I.R.O., 1969, as prima facie the offence appears to be made out.

L1.Y.H./1707/Lb. S Application accepted.