The order dated 24th May, 1981 whereby the petitioner was summon--ed to stand trial under section 25-A (8) read with sections 54 and 55 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 has been challenged, in this revision. The respondent was Soap Clerk and was transferred to the post of Oil Clerk. He did not obey the order, therefore, was charge-sheeted and after holding an enquiry was dismissed from service. The respondent challenged the order of dismissal in a grievance petition which was accepted and the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service allowing the petitioner to hold fresh enquiry. The legality of the transfer order was not touched by the learned lower Court. After the order of reinstatement was passed the (respondent made an application to the petitioner for being given duty and he was reinstated on the post of Oil Clerk. The respondent refused to take duty as Oil Clerk and asked the petitioner that he be given duty on the post of Soap Clerk. Since it was not done, the respondent made a complaint under section 25-A (8) read with sections 54 and 55 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
2. Section 25-A (9) is relevant. If in the order time is fixed within which it is to be implemented, complaint can be made by the beneficiary of the order but if no time is fixed then complaint can be made, according to section 25-A (9) (b), by the Court that passed the order. In the present case the lower Court did not fix the time for the implementation of the order, therefore, the respondent could not bring the complaint directly. He should have moved the Labour Court concerned for bringing the/ complaint. The complaint brought by the respondent is, therefore, no it competent.
3. Even on merits the respondent has no case. The order passed by the learned lower Court has been duly implemented. The Labour Court did not hold that the transfer of the respondent to the post of Oil Clerk was illegal, nor the said order was set aside. Only on a technical ground the respondent was directed to be reinstated allowing the petitioner to hold fresh enquiry. The respondent was, in compliance with the order of the Labour Court , reinstated and asked to join duty as Oil Clerk but a he refused. The learned lower Court in these circumstances wrongly observed that a prima facie case under section 25-A (8) read with sections--54 and 55 had been made-up.
4. As a result of what has been said above, I accept the revision and setting aside the impugned order of summoning the petitioner, dismiss, the complaint.