' IRFAN SAADAT KHAN, J.--- The applicants are aggrieved by the order dated 17 January, 2012 passed by Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No,5, Karachi on Criminal Complaint No,2 of 2012 filed by the respondent No,1 under sections 65, 73 and 74 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2008 (the Act) against the applicants, whereby the Criminal Complaint was admitted, registered and summons have been issued to the applicants by treating them as accused while the applications filed by the applicants under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Read with section 265-K, Cr.P.C. And another application filed under sections 205/540-A, Cr.P.C. Were kept pending.
2. The facts of the case are that the applicant No,1 is an industry and establishment under the Act and is also registered under the Companies Act, 1913 while the applicants Nos.2 and 6 are its Secretary General and President respectively. Applicants No,3 was its ex-President and Vice- Presidents and Applicants Nos.4 and 5 were its ex-VicePresidents. The respondent No,1 is an employee of the applicant No,1 and Vice-President of Karachi Chamber of Commerce and Industry Employees' Union, the certified Collective Bargaining Agent in the applicant No,1 establishment. The respondent No,1 filed a complaint under sections 65, 73, 74 and 80 of the Act before the Labour Court No,5 at Karachi alleging therein that on 14-5-2003 the CBA of the applicant No,1 raised industrial dispute by submitting the Charter of Demands to the applicant No,1 and the same was then submitted to the Area Conciliator as provided under the law and the same is still pending.It was further alleged that Gratuity, Provident Fun, leave and other benefits were secured under the settlement as well as service rules of the applicant No,1 which were unilaterally snatched by applicants vide circulars dated 28-5-2003 and 30-6-2003 despite pendency of industrial dispute.
The General Secretary of the CBA addressed a letter to the President of applicant No,1 requesting him to restore the rights and benefits which were snatched under the garb that labour laws are not applicable to the applicant No,l. However, such rights and benefits were not restored; the respondent No,1 filed a complaint before the Labour Court as stated above. The Presiding Officer of the Labour Court No,5, Karachi, after recording the statement of the complainant/respondent No,1, admitted the complaint and issued summons to the applicants. It is a ainst this order that the applicants have approached this Court throt; h the present Cr. Misc. Application.
3. Mr. Mehmood Alam Rizvi, learned counsel for the applicants contended that the Presiding Officer was not justified in admitting the criminal complaint, which admittedly has been filed after a lapse of 8-1/2 years. He further submitted that the registration of the CBA was cancelled on 24-11-2003, however, still the respondent No,1 in his private capacity has filed the complaint under section 200 of Cr.P.C. In the year 2012 which, according to him, was not maintainable. He further submitted that the settlement was valid for two years, which expired on 30-4-2003 and since no new settlement was arrived, therefore, the matter was pending adjudication before the respondent No,3 bearing No,1/2007, hence, according to him, there was no violation of any settlement. He further submitted that the respondent No,3 has failed to consider the circulars and had he considered the same he would not have admitted the complaint. He further submitted that no case under section 65 of the Act has been made out against the accused persons and the respondent No,3 has failed to perform his duty in accordance with law. In support of his arguments the learned counsel relied on the following reported judgments:---
(i) Mian Ghayassuddin and others v. Mst. Hidayatun Nisa and others (2011 SCM R 803),
(ii) Miraj Khan v. Gul Ahmed and others (2000 SCM R 122), and
(iii) Mian Munir Ahmed v. The State (1985 SCM R 257)
4. Mr. Rafiullah, learned counsel for respondent No,1, while controverting the arguments of learned counsel for the applicants, firstly argued that since alternate remedy is available with the applicants to approach the Labour Tribunal, therefore, this criminal misc. Application is not maintainable. In this regard he referred to section 55(4) of the Act He also submitted that the applicants by reducing the number of leave per year and by abolishing the gratuity payable to the its employees violated, their own service rules. He, therefore, contended that the applicants have snatched the rights of the workers without any notice to them. He finally submitted that since provisions of section 65 of the Act were not complied with, therefore, they exposed themselves to be prosecuted under section 73 of the Act. In support of his contentions the learned counsel has relied upon the following decisions:-
(i) Independent Newspapers Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. Through Manager and 2 others v. Daily Jang and Press Workers' Union (CBA) through General Secretary (2006 PLC 173)
(ii) Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd., Chittagong v. The Chairman Second Labour Court of East Pakistan and 18 others (1972 PLC 190).
(iii) Workers' Union C.B.A. (Regd.), Shakarganj Mills, Jhang v. Shakarganj Mills Limited (1990 PLC 686).
(iv) Messrs Jabees (Pvt.) Limited v. Presiding Officer and another (SBLR 2007 Sindh 1817).
(v) Sardar Khan and 4 others v. Punjab Road Transport Board, Multan (1978 PLC 264)
(vi) Qassim Shah and others v. The State (PLD 1991 SC 893).
' The learned A.P.G., Ms. Seema Zaidi, has adopted the arguments of Mr. Rafiullah.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. At the very outset it is sden that the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court is sketchy and has been passed in a slipshod manner. The learned Court has admitted and registered the complaint by issuing summon to the accused without recording reasons in this regard. It is seen that the learned Presiding Officer has though examined the complainant on oath but has failed to give detailed reasons in this regard as to how he has satisfied himself that the complaint is maintainable without giving detailed reasons in this regard. It has specifically been mentioned in section 24-A of the General Clauses Act that where power is given to an authority for passing any order or giving directions such power shall be exercised reasonably, fairly and justly. Whereas, it is seen that in the instant case the learned Presiding Officer in a very cursory, casual and breezy manner has come to the conclusion that prima facie the case is made out and thereafter the complaint was admitted and registered but no reason in this regard as to reaching to such conclusion has been detailed, which in my opinion has rendered the impugned order to be a nullity in the eyes of law. In my view the judicial officers are always required that their orders and judgments must be well reasoned and lis pending before them has to be disposed of by way of passing a speaking order. No matter, whatsoever could be disposed of by simply jumping to the conclusion that a case is made out, without first recording the detailed reasons for reaching to such conclusion?
7. I was able to lay my hands on decision in the case of Roshan Ali v. Amir Bux and another reported as PLD 2002 Kar. 115, wherein the learned Judge has categorically observed that the Magistrate must not lightly accept the written complaint and should not proceed to issue process until he had fully sifted the allegations made against the accused and was satisfied that prima facie the case had been made out against those who were accused of the criminal offences. Somewhat similar decision was given in the case of Ahmed v. The State reported. As 2004 PCr.LJ 304, wherein also the order passed by the Judge was remanded back to pass appropriate order on a direct complaint after observing that the said order passed was without giving any reasons or findings and was found to be a non-speaking order. I was also fortified by the view given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Mollah Ejahar Ali v. Government of East Pakistan, reported as PLD 1970 SC 173, wherein the Hon'ble apex Court observed that a Court disposing of an order must be by way of a speaking order manifesting by itself that Court has applied its mind.
8. Hence, without entering into any legal intricacy, it would be in fitness of things if this case is remanded back to the Presiding Officer with directions to pass an order de novo after giving detailed reasons in his order so as to satisfy himself that whether a prima facie case is made out or not and whether the case is liable to be admitted or registered. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside with directions to the Presiding Officer to pass an order afresh preferably within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order by fulfilling the parameters as enumerated above.
7. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application is disposed of in the above manner.