NASEEM SAIGOL Versus ALTAF HUSSAIN, LABOUR OFFICER AND INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES, CENTRAL DIVISION, SINDH, KARACHI

1. Through this single order I propose to dispose of two Constitution petitions bearing Nos. S-6 and S-7 of 1997 filed by the petitioners against the conviction passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No.5, Karachi.

2. The facts giving rise to the present petitions are that Assistant Director and Inspector of Secretaries Central Division, Karachi filed complaints under West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 against accused/petitioners Naseem Saigol the employer and Mansoorul Haq the Manager M/s. PEL Services Centre, Karachi alleging therein that on 21-5-1996 on inspection complainant found that appointment letters were not issued to the workers, permanent workers were not provided permanent cards, temporary workers were not provided temporary cards, notice showing the pay was not displayed, holidays notice was not displayed, notice showing unclaimed wages pay day was not displayed, leave refused register was not maintained, leave passes were not issued to the workers and notice showing rate of wages payable to all classes of workers for all classes of work was not displayed, therefore, complaint under section 2(g) read with Order 2(A), section 2(g) read with Order 2(2), section 2(g) read with Order 2(4), section 2(g) read with Order 4, section 2(g) read with Order 10, section 2(g) read with Order 8, section 2(g) read with Order 10, section 2(g) read with Order 8(2) and section 2(g) read with Order 5 of the Standing Order Ordinance, 1968 punishable under section 7(2) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. Trial Court framed the charge accordingly and on .the "plea of guilt" convicted the petitioners to pay a fine of Rupees 75 per day from 21-5-1996 till date in 9 cases jointly and severally amounting to rupees 3,40,200 in impugned judgment in petition No. 6 of 1997 and they have to pay a fine of Rs.100 each in impugned judgment .in petition No. 7 of 1997.

3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment they have preferred the present petitions.

4. The petitioners/accused both common in the two petitions, have contended that they are Chairman and Regional Manager respectively of a joint Stock/Limited Company, registered under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 and are carrying on its manufacturing process at Lahore and Gadoon Amazai and the manufactured goods are sold and delivered by them all over the Pakistan and they have office for sales at Karachi. The petitioners have opened their office "after sales service centre" being separate entity which has been registered as commercial establishment vide Registration No. V-10 under the provisions of West Pakistan Shops and Shipment Ordinance, 1969 since 24-9-1994 and they have also opened another separate establishment in the name and style of PEL Sales Office at 22-A, Anum Pride, Block 7/8, K.E.&C., Karachi for the sales of spare parts. This office is quite separate from the worship of "after sales service centre" and it has also been registered separately as commercial establishment vide registration No. V-41 under the provisions of West Pakistan Shops and Establishment Ordinance, 1969 since 24-9-1996. It is alleged that one inspector, namely, Faiz Muhammad visited PEL/Sales Office and the PEL "after sales service centre" on 2-10-1996 carried out the inspection of the petitioners' company. In his report he categorically stated that during inspection no violation of law was detected. Respondent Altaf Hussain, Labour Officer and Inspector of Factories, Central Division, Sindh Secretariat, Karachi, visited the office and workshop of the petitioners on 21-5-1996 and found the petitioners committing the alleged offences. Respondent No. 1 on the basis of his alleged findings filed the complaint Nos. 99 to 107 of 1996 and complaint No. 98/ 1996 in the Court of Presiding Officer, 5th Sindh Labour Court, Karachi. As stated above the learned Judge framed the charge against the accused petitioners on the basis of alleged "admission of guilt" by the petitioners/accused. It is the further case of the petitioners that at the relevant time they were at Lahore when the process of the complaint was served upon the accused/petitioners through their Establishment at Karachi. Accused petitioners requested one Muhammad Iqbal Shah, Advocate, on the evening of 5-1-1997 from Lahore to look after the case of the petitioners. Subsequently petitioners came to know when their counsel informed them about their presence in Court on 7-1-1997 for "pleading guilty" whereas both the petitioners were at Lahore on the said date. It is further alleged that some unauthorised persons appeared in the Court on 7-1-1997 and represented themselves to be the petitioners and pleaded guilty as being petitioners. On the basis of pleading guilty the learned Judge convicted them.

5. I have heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Rana Muhammad Aslam and Mr. Haleem Siddiqui appearing on behalf of the respondents, latter does not support the prosecution case. On perusal of the record, I find that the admission allegedly made by the petitioners was not recorded as nearly as possible in the words used by them and also they were not given opportunity to show why they should not be convicted as contemplated under section 243, Cr.P.C. which is reproduced hereunder:

6. "Conviction on admission of truth of accusation. If the accused admits that he has committed the offence with which he is charged his admission shall be recorded as nearly as possible in the words used by him; and, if he shows no sufficient cause why he should not be convicted, the Magistrate may convict him accordingly."

7. It is thus crystal clear that not only the trial Court was obliged to record the admission as nearly as possible to the words of the accused/petitioners but was duty bound to ask the petitioners as to why they should not be convicted despite their admission of guilt. Merely recording the statement in the words "pleads guilty" is not sufficient.

8. In view of my above conclusion, I allow both the petitions and set aside the conviction end sentence of the petitioners /accused dated 7-1-1997. The cases are remanded to trial Court for proceeding against the petitioners in accordance with law.

9. A.A./N-55/K Case remanded.