1. ' Muhammad Sanauddin Siddiqui now posted as Branch Manager, Siemens Pakistan Engineering Co., Ltd. At Quetta calls in question the order dated 4-9-1984 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Quetta. By this order a non-bailable warrant against him has been issued in proceedings initiated under section 25-A, I.R.O. By the respondent Ghulam Nabi against (1) M/s. Siemens Pakistan Engineering Co., Ltd. Karachi, and (2) Manager, Siemens Pakistan Engineering Co; Limited, Jinnah Road, Quetta. This application under section 25-A I.R.O. Filed by respondent was against the termination of his services by M/s. Siemens Pakistan Engineering Co. Limited, Quetta passed on 23-2-1983. On an application made on behalf of the respondent, the Labour Court on 14- 6-1984 ordered the opposite party to produce certain documents but did not specify as to which of the above-mentioned two respondents had to comply with the order. Yet another application seeking the production of the record was filed on 14-6-1984. This application was granted by the Labour Court but it was again not specified as to who was to comply and produce the record desired therein. The order passed by the learned Presiding Officer dated 14-6-1984 reads:- {{URDU TEXT}} ' The written order mentioned in this order is not on record and it appears has not been recorded at all. On 14th July, 1984 an order was made that the opposite party had not filed the documents and the case was adjourned for 23-7-1984. On this day a reply was filed and it was pointed out that since the respondent was employed for Baluchistan the service record of the persons employed in other provinces was not relevant. It was prayed that since the application made by the respondent herein was with ulterior motive and he wants to linger on the matter, the application deserves dismissal. The Presiding Officer in the minutes of the proceedings recorded on 23-7-1984 observed:- {{URDU TEXT}} ' The counsel for the opposite party filed reply to the notice for contempt and pointed out that "the applicant was junior most in his cadre of driver in Quetta Region: The list of the employees of Quetta Region has already been submitted on the last date of hearing. It was submitted that "respondents (respondents in the application) have not disobeyed deliberately and intentionally any direction or order of the Court. However, if any misunderstanding has arisen on any account, the same is highly regretted". On 19-8-1984 the Labour Court recorded yet another order, the relevant portion thereof reads:- {{URDU TEXT}} ' On 4-9-1984 the reply was filed on behalf of respondent No,2 through counsel and it was said that at no stage, either the applicant (respondent herein) or the Hon'ble Court has impleaded the respondent No,2 as a party in his personal capacity and that "to the surprise on 3rd September, 1984 an unsigned summon has been. Issued in the name of the respondent No,2 in the present proceedings in his private and personal capacity. It was also mentioned that on 3rd September, 1984 the respondent No,2 was on outdoor duty, the summons was received by the receptionist of the company. This reply was taken exception and the non-bailable warrants has been ordered to be issued and the matter was fixed for 12-9-1984.
2. ' Sanauddin Siddiqui had, therefore,to rush to this Tribunal and my learned predecessor while admitting the appeal for hearing observed:- ' Apparently it seems to be very strange that in a civil matter, non-bailable warrants of arrest are directed particularly when a counsel was appearing.
3. ' The record of the case was sent for so that the circumstances motivating the learned Presiding Officer to resort to this unprecedented course could be examined and proper directions could be given to him for future guidance. The order of issuance of warrants was suspended and the warrants in pursuance, thereof, if any, issued, was to be recalled immediately by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Quetta.
4. ' Mr. Basharatullah, the learned counsel for Sanauddin Siddiqi has urged before me that since summons addressed to Sanauddin Siddiqi was unsigned (the summon, in original has been annexed to the appeal Actually it is not signed by any one) thus there was justification that this fact should be brought to the notice of the Labour Court and it was in fact explained in the reply filed by the counsel and since at the time when the summon was taken to the office Mr. Sanauddin Siddiqui was not there, it cannot be taken as violation or disregard of the order of the Court. The learned Presiding Officer has been led away by a report of the Process Server which in turn was not in accordance with the Rules laid down in that behalf, as the facts mentioned in the report were not affirmed by any affidavit. At any rate there were allegations which certainly had to be established before it could be made basis against Sanauddin Siddiqui. The report in the absence of any sworn statement when the allegations made therein were being challenged was worthy of no consideration. The procedure is always designed to facilitate justice and further its end not a penal actment for punishment and penalties. Justice is done to both sides. There must be ever present to the mind that our laws of procedure are grounded as principle of natural justice which require that men should not be condemned unheard, that decisions shall not be reached behind their back that proceedings that affect their life and property should not continue in their absence. It can in the circumstances be safely concluded that the undue haste exhibited by the learned Presiding Officer has created the situation which could be avoided.
5. ' I have not been able to find any provision under the law (Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969) which gives any authority to a Labour Court to punish for its own contempt. The only provision contained in this behalf is section 38 (5), I.R.O. Which reads:- "38(5) The Tribunal shall have authority to punish for contempts of its authority, or that of any Labour Court subject to its appellate jurisdiction, as if it were a High Court."
6. This provision, therefore, authorises only the Tribunal to punish for contempt of any Labour Court subject to its appellate jurisdiction. By no stretch of argument this power can be conceded to the Labour Court. I am constrained to hold that the learned Presiding Officer did not keep in mind the golden rule that it should not be unduly touchy about its dignity and this is so for the maintenance of the dignity of the Court and also enjoyment of the confidence of the litigating public.
7. For the above reasons in exercise of the powers vested in me under section 38(3-A), I.R.O. I set aside the order dated 4-9-1984 and quash the proceedings for contempt of Court initiated by the Presiding Officer Labour Court. The non-bailable warrants stands recalled. The record is to be returned to the Labour Court for early disposal of the application under section 25-A, I.R.O. In accordance with the law.
8. Contempt .