MAHMOOD AHMAD SOOFI (CHAIRMAN). The petitioner Muhammad Ali (the son of Muhammad Bakhsh) has filed this application against the respondent Ch. Abdul Majid, formerly Manager and Partner of Inayat Ullah Transport Company, Lyallpur. According to the petitioner himself this application has been filed under section 62 of the 'Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969'. The petitioner has stated In it that on the date 18-3-1970 his previous Application No. 66 of '1969 under Standing Order No. 18(b) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment. (Standing Orders) The present Court, 1968 decided ordinance, in the petitioner---s favour. The petitioner has alleged that when he appeared before the respondent with a certified copy of the order of this Court dated 18-3-1970 and showed that order to the respondent the latter refused to re-instate the respondent in service and also declined to. pay any `salary' to the petitioner. In view of these facts the petitioner has prayed that appropriate proceedings might be taken -by this Court.
2. A notice of this application was sent to the respondent who filed his detailed. reply to it in this Court on the date 20th of October 1970. The respondent asserted that the petitioner had erred is stating that the respondent Ch. Abdul Majid was the Manager of the Inayat Ullah Transport Company (Regd.), Lyallpur, inasmuch as the respondent was only a partner of that Company. The respondent further submitted that the bus on which the petitioner was formerly working as a conductor was no longer under the control of the Inayat Ullah Transport Company after the date 28th of February 1966, as indicated by a certified copy of the deed of dissolution of that Company which has been filed by the respondent in supportreply. The contents of this dissolution deed explicitly indicate that the firm designated as Inayat Ullah Transport Company, Lyallpur, has been dissolved with effect from the date 28-2-1966. The respondent has also pointed it out,. Abdul Majid, that the order of this Court dated 12-2-1970 was passed in favour of the petitioner Muhammad Ali in the absence of the said respondent inasmuch as the respondent was not aware of the fact that a notice for appearance in this Court had been sent to him On this Court During the month of February 1970, the respondent came to know of the fact that an order had been passed against him by this Court. It has also been emphasized by the respondent that he is not the owner of any bus, hence the question of re-instating the petitioner in his services does not arise. The respondent denied that he had committed any con--tempt of this Labour Court particularly when on receiving a telephonic summons from this Court he did present himself is this Court without any delay.
(3) I have heard the arguments of both parties arid have' examined the relevant record. It is essential to mention in this context that the order of this Covert dated 12-2-1970 was passed by thiS.0eurt, under Standing -Order No. 18 of the `West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance V; 1968', under which the present petitioner Muhammad Ali had filed his original complaint in this Court. In view of this circumstance section 62 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, under which the present application purports to. have been filed in this Court is absolutely 'irrelevant to the present case of the petitioner Muhammad Ali.
Secondly, in tire briefly worded, application under consideration the petitioner Muhammad Ali has not cared to state all the relevant facts particularly the fact that the respondent Abdul Majid is not the Manager of the Inayat Ullah Transport Company, Lyallpur nor has he made any reference to the important fact that this Transport Company was dissolved with effect from the date 28-2-1966. In his main complaint under Standing Order No. 18(b) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 the petitioner Muhammad Ali cited the respondent. Ch. Abdul Majid by name as a respondent but did not bring all the pertinent facts to the notice of this Court. The responsibility for informing a Court of Law of all the facts bearing upon a case rests squarely upon the person who invokes the jurisdiction of that Court. In the present case the petitioner seems to me to have deliberately withheld essential information from this Court.
(4) For all the above-stated reasons this application of teas petitioner Muhammad Ali under section 62 of the Industrial relations Ordinance, 1.6169 is hereby dismissed.