Mr. Aejaz Ali Memon, Inspector of Factories and Labour Officer (Factories) Dadu at Kotri, has filed this complaint for the prosecution of the accused herein under section 7. Of the West Pakistan Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. According to the complaint brought on record as Exh. P.6, accused is running the establishment Messrs Nazir & Company (P) Limited Workshop, Khairpur having its project office at Latifabad, Hyderabad. He is said to have contravened the provisions of Standing Order 1.2(4) inasmuch as he did not pay the legal dues of Messrs Muhammad Arif and Suleman Ghani on their resignation from their service.
On receiving this complaint summons were issued to the accused and a charge was framed and read over to him on 21-5-1986 He pleaded not guilty and so this complaint was set-down for evidence.
At the trial, the complainant Aejaz Ali Memon examined himself and produced the original complaint said to have been filed by nine workers of Messrs Nazir & Company as Exh. P.1. He also produced show-cause notice issued to the Administration Officer of Messrs Nazir & Company, on 15-2-1986 as Exh. P.2 and its reply as Exh. P.3. Replies to these show-cause notices, dated 23-2-1986 and 5-4-1986 have been produced as Exhs. P. 4 and P. 5 respectively. He has also produced the original sanction for prosecution letter, dated 1-3-1986, issued by Joint Director Labour, Hyderabad as Exh. P.
7. Statements of Muhammad Arif and Suleman Ghani have been brought on record as Exhs. P. 3 and P.
9. He also examined worker Suleman Ghani in support of his case.
After the prosecution evidence as aforesaid, the accused was examined under section 342, Cr. P.C., on 27-9-1986. The accused however did not lead any defence.
After evidence, I have heard Mr. Aejaz Ali Memon, complainant, and Mr. M. Bashir Awan, Advocate for the accused. , POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
(1) Whether the complainant is competent to file the present complaint.
(2) Whether the complaint is otherwise maintainable in law.
(3) Whether the accused has committed any offence.
Point No. 1: As mentioned above, this complaint has been filed by the Inspector of Factories in respect of a violation said to have been committed by the accused. Mr. Awan, learned counsel for the accused, has seriously disputed the competence of this Labour Officer. According to him, the complainant is said to be a Labour Officer/ Inspector of Factories, in respect of the Dadu District and is stationed at Kotri. According to the complaint Exh. P. 5, the project office of the accused is situated at Latifabad, Hyderabad. The accused said to be a Project Manager and so he is running this project at Hyderabad. The establishment of Messrs Nazir & Company is said to be at Khairpur. Accordingly, Mr. Awan submits that this complainant is not competent to prosecute or file any complaint against the accused who is having his office and business outside his territorial jurisdiction and which jurisdiction is confined and limited to only Dadu District. The complainant has examined one Suleman Ghani, who is said to have made complaint to this complainant, and he has also deposed that he alongwith his colleagues were posted near Rajputana Hospital which is admittedly situated outside the limits of Dadu District. Mr. Awan, on the other hand, submits that Messrs Nazir & Company is also working at Kotri and the workers were posted there and so he has jurisdiction and authority to file the present complaint. The complaint Exh. P. 1, made by the workers to the complainant herein apparently, on 11-2-1986 shows the address of the Project Manager, as the accused herein, at Hyderabad. It nowhere discloses where these workers were posted and how their grievance accrued within the territorial limits of this complainant. One worker whose wages are said to have been refused is Suleman Ghani and he has been examined by the complainant, on 9-9-1986. He has clearly admitted in his cross-examination that he was posted at Rajputana Hospital. This shows that neither the Project Manager had any connection with Kotri or Dadu District nor the workers whose payments had been allegedly refused were employed within the territorial limits of this complainant. Admittedly this complainant is a notified Labour Officer/ Inspector for Dadu District. Mr. Memon has relied upon the letter said to have been issued by his Joint Director as Exh. P.
7. Firstly, this sanction letter is of no legal consequence because no sanction for prosecution is required for a notified Inspector; secondly, the Joint Director is not at all competent to accord any sanction for the prosecution g of the present nature; and, thirdly, even this sanction does not help the complainant because it has, been in respect of the management having its workshop at Kotri. As pointed out above, there is no material on record to show that this Project Manager is running his workshop at Kotri or that the workers were also posted at Kotri. Accordingly, this complaint is not maintainable because it has been instituted by a person having no authority in law, in respect of the violations committed outside his local limits.
Point No. 2: Complaint Exh. P. 1 is against the Project Manager of Messrs Nazir & Company Limited, Hyderabad in respect of an unspecified amount which are said to have been refused by the Management. Out of the two persons mentioned in the complaint Exh. P. 5 only one Suleman Ghani has been examined in this Court and according to him he had been paid his wages for December, 1985 and further that he was aggrieved only because meal allowance and overtime, said to have been promised by the Management were not paid to the workers. In view of his statement, there was no dispute about the non-payment of wages but the dispute is only in respect of a disputed claim and which is legally required to be first ascertained and decided by a competent authority. Accordingly, in my humble view, the non-payment of a disputed claim would not be construed to be a contravention of Standing Order 12(4). Besides this, I find that though this complaint of the workers is against the Project Manager and has also been filed by the complainant in this Court against the Project Manager but admittedly before coming to this Court the complainant neither issued any show- cause notice to the Project Manager nor he ever bothered to verify the correctness of the accessation. He only sent a notice to the Administrative Officer as Exh. P. 2, warning him as to why he should not be prosecuted. This notice also shows that the responsibility of payment of the dues was on this Administrative Officer and not the present accused. The Administrative Officer by letter, dated 23-2-1986, Exh. P. 4 intimated the complainant about the investigation of the matter and intimation of the result in due course. However, the complainant never bothered to either wait for the result or final reply or to himself verify the actual position but hurriedly filed the complaint, on 27-2-1986. In any case, the complainant neither made any enquiries from present accused in this matter nor he has mentioned in his complaint Exh. P. 6 that this accused is responsible for the payments to the workers. As per the show-cause notice the Administrative Officer has been held to be responsible and since apparently an unconcerned person has been prosecuted in this Court, the complaint shall not be maintainable in law and in liable to be dismissed on this score alone.
Point No. 3: Assuming that the complainant is competent to lodge this complaint and the complaint is also maintainable in law, I feel that the guilt of the accused has not been established. As stated above, out of the two workers, only one has been examined in support of this complaint and he has also clearly admitted that the grievance is only because of non-payment of promised meal and overtime allowances. There is no evidence on record to show what was the working hours and for what time more the workers had performed their duties. There is also no evidence what was the meal allowance and how much overtime was unpaid. The accused has denied the admissibility of such claim and so this dispute about the claim is to be established and ascertained before it could be termed as a violation of the Standing Order Ordinance.
On going through the evidence, I find that the complainant did not make any enquiries from the workers in respect of their claims. Exhs. P.8 and P.9 are doubtful documents. Admittedly, these statements D were not recorded by the complainant himself but are said to have been prepared by some clerk and the complainant simply signed the same. A stereotype statement was prepared for all the workers and I think that the signatures or L.T.Is. Were fabricated. This is evident from the fact that Muhammad Arif has signed in English in the complains Exh. P.1 whereas on his so called statement Exh. P. 8 is thumb impression has been shown. I enquired from Mr. Aejaz Ali Memon about this glaring difference but he could not explain the same. This Arif has also not been tendered in evidence and there is also no explanation for his absence. The plea of the accused is that none of the workers had approached him for their dues and so he cannot be held guilty of the offence. If the allegation of refusal is denied by the accused the prosecution is under legal obligation to prove the same and for this purpose the person who alleges refusal must be examined in Court. A9 pointed out above, Arif has not been examined and Suleman Ghani: showed his grievance only in respect of a disputed claim. In this view of the matter, the case is full of doubt particularly when, as stated above, the conduct of the complainant has been found to be high doubtful and mala fide. This point is accordingly answered in negative.
The upshot of the above is that the complainant has miserably) failed to bring home the guilt of the accused and so this complaint is dismissed and the accused is acquitted of the charge.