' The facts leading up to this revision petition are that the respondent Mashoodul Hassan, a workman in Metro Garments Industries, Karachi, filed a criminal complaint before Sind Labour Court No, III at Karachi under section 15(h) read with section 53(1-a), I. R.
0., 1969, against petitioner Zaheeruddin and his five other co-accused, the partners and officers working in the establishment. Mashoodul Hassan alleged that they had recruited new workmen during the period of notice of strike in contravention of clause (1)(h) of section 15 punishable under section 53(1-A), I. R.
0. The learned Labour Court took cognizance of the offence, recorded statement under section 200, C. P. C. And issued process against petitioner Zaheeruddin and his co-accused. The petitioner, Zaheeruddin, the Factory Manager made an application by way of an information for suo motu action under section 38(3-a) I. R.
0., to this Tribunal. The petition was registered as suo motu revision and notices were issued to the parties.
2. I have heard Mr. Wasi Ahmed, appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the respondent Mashoodul Hassan in person. Mr. Wasi Ahmed mainly contended that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and try the alleged offence against the petitioner Zaheeruddin and his co-accused in the complaint. What I find that section 64, I. R.
0., lays down that save as provided in the Ordinance, no Court other than Labour Court or that of Magistrate, Ist Class shall try any offence punishable under the Ordinance. Section 22(1) (8) (1) lays down as one of the functions of National Industrial Relations Commissions to try offences punishable under section 53, other than subsections (1) and (5) thereof. Subsection (6) of section 53, I. R.
0., provides that nothing in the Ordinance shall be deemed to exclude the jurisdiction of a Labour Court or a Court of a Magistrate to try a case under that section if it is authorised to do so by a general or special order of the Commission. The above-mentioned provisions clearly provide the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to try offences falling within the meaning of section 53(1-a), I. R.
0. Unless so authorized by a general or special order of the Commission. In my view, the exception provided in subsection (12) of section 22-A, I. R.
0. Refers only to cases of unfair labour practice on the part of the employers or the workmen and the applications and proceedings in respect thereof except the trial of criminal prosecutions as contemplated by section 22-A(f I. R.
0. Accordingly, the trial of offences in respect of unfair labour practices except those falling under subsections (1) and (5) of section 53, I, R.
0. Would fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of National Industrial Relations Commission, unless the Commission authorises the Labour Court to try the same by a general or special order. I would, therefore, find that since the Labour Court entertained the complaint without an authority from the National Industrial Relations Commission, it acted without jurisdiction by taking cognizance of the alleged offence and by ordering issue of process against the petitioner Zaheeruddin and his five co-accused in the complaint.
3. The result is that the proceedings before the learned Labour Court are quashed and the revision petition is allowed accordingly.