' This is a complaint brought under section 25-A(8) for punishing respondent and for directing him to reinstate the complainant. The respondent brought a writ petition to the High Court and secured a stay order on 26-4-1979. On the application of the complainant probably to the effect that the writ petition had become infructuous, the writ was dismissed on 25-5-1982 and in this manner the stay granted in it came to an end. The complainant informed the respondent by means of his application dated 29-5-1982 about the dismissal of the writ petition and asked him to reinstate him in compliance with the order of the Labour Court. The respondent made another writ petition and got a stay order on 23-6-1982, which is still effective. This complaint was brought on 22-5-1982, in the subsistance of which previous stay order issued by the High Court without disclosing in the complaint about the said stay order. The office has wrongly mentioned in the order of presentation of the complaint that it was brought under section 38(5) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
It is clear from the complaint that it was brought under section 25-A (8) of the Ordinance. Clause
(9) of section 25-A says that no one can be prosecuted under clause (8) of section 25-A, except on a complaint in writing brought either by the workman, or by the Labour Court or the Tribunal, the decision of which has not been complied with. This Tribunal, therefore, cannot itself proceed against the respondent for contempt of court as is done under section 38(5), but if it is said that intentionally the order of this court dated 26-4-82,, whereby the appeal of the respondent was dismissed, has not been complied with, the complaint is to be brought. It appears that the previous writ petition was erroneously got dismissed, therefore, another writ petition on the same points and grounds has been admitted and stay order issued. But for the dismissal of the previous writ petition, the stay order issued by the High Court would have continued. Usually contempt petitions and complaints are brought with a view to get the orders passed by the Labour Courts or this Tribunal implemented and intention is seldom to get the employer punished. Of course, if in spite of the bringing of the contempt petition or the complaint, the employer is proved to be obstinate and fails to comply with the order, he is to be punished. Since now a stay order has been issued by the High Court, the respondent cannot reinstate the complainant, otherwise he himself would be guilty of contempt of court of the order of the High Court on account of on one hand getting the stay order and on the other defying it. So, in the subsistence of the stay order issued by the High Court the purpose of present petition cannot be achieved by the complaint.
2. In the circumstances discussed above, this Tribunal is reluctant to act as a complainant by bringing a complaint against the respondent. With these observations, the petition is filed.