This appeal which is directed against dismissal, by a Member of this Commission, of the appellant's complaint, raises the question of its maintainability under section 22-D of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
2. In a complaint brought by the appellant, the learned Member recorded the preliminary statements of the complainant and his witness Amir Afzal -Khan, whereupon he came to the view that "no charge if laid could be successfully proved against the respondent on the basis of the complaint in the material before me". Consequently he dismissed the complaint without summoning the accused. The case of the appellant is that the object of enquiry under section 200, Cr.P.C. Is to find out prima facie the jurisdiction of moving a complaint and not otherwise, but that the learned Member has treated the material before him as if the trial was complete and final verdict is to be given, although the complainant had still to prove his case after the framing of the charge.
3. No case law has been cited in support of maintainability o the appeal. The intention of the law, as contained in Section 22-D of the I.R.O., 1969 is that in a criminal case only the sentence can be appealed from. There being no provision for appeal from disposal of a criminal case otherwise than by a sentence, it had been held by a Full Bench of this Commission in Capt. (Rtd.) Abdul Wajid and 2 others v. Sher Muhammad and others (1980 PLC 800u) that no appeal can lie from a decision of acquittal. Even though a judgment of acquittal was considered by the Full Bench to be a "decision", the reason given by the Chairman for not admitting the appeal was that, "the basic question is whether or not the Statute has specifically provided for a right of appeal as against an order of acquittal. The scheme of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, unmistakably points out to the fact that it does not provide for such a right and as observed by me earlier, it cannot be created by implication. It is for the Legislature to amend the law, if they want to provide for an appeal against acquittal, but we cannot assume jurisdiction which the law clearly says is not ours".
4. The same view was reiterated by another Full Bench of the Commission in Ch. Ghulam Hussain v.
Alexandor Fernandez, M.D. Bata Shoe Co. (Oak.) Ltd. 1980 PLC 1191. We see no reason to expand the scope of appeal and must hold that there being no express provision under section 22-D of the I.R.O., 1969 to cover the present appeal, the appeal must fail on the question of maintainability. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine.
A.A./102/Lb. I.R.C.