This appeal is directed against the dismissal of the appellant's contempt application.
2. The appellant had filed a complaint under section 16(1)(d) read with section 53 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Simultaneously, he had also applied under Regulation 32(2) of the N.I.R.C. (Procedure & Functions) Regulations, 1973 whereon interim directions were given on 17-2- 1985 prohibiting the Respondents from doing certain acts. This order is said to have been subsequently confirmed. Later, while dismissing the complaint, the learned Member by the same order also dismissed the contempt application itself.
3. It is urged that the part of the judgment so far as it relates to the dismissal of the contempt application, was passed without hearing the appellant and not being a speaking order, it was not a judicial order at all.
4. In dealing with this appeal, we have to keep in mind the fact that the contempt application had been filed for alleged violation of an interim order made under regulation 32(2) of the Regulations.
1973 in a complaint case. There is ample case law to support that complaint relates only to an act committed which is covered by sub-- regulation (1) of Regulation 32 and that in such case recourse to sub-regulation (2) which deals with acts likely to occur cannot be had. In this connection, we may refer to the ruling of the Lahore High Court in Dr. Ijaz Hussain Qureshi v. N.I.R.C.
And two others PLD 1976 Lah. 811, Hotel Intercontinental, Rawalpindi v. N.I.R.C. And others 1980 PLC 752 C and of Sind High Court in Saeed Ahmed Qazi v. N.I.R.C. And another 1984 PLC 1480, Muhammad Ali and others v. Sind Labour Court No.1, Karachi and others 1984 PLC 1645 and National Bank of Pakistan v. Senior Member, N.I.R.C and another 1986 PLC 985. It has been urged that the application under regulation 32(2) was itself a case independent of the complaint. This is not supportable by regulation 32(2) which pre-supposes the institution of a case of unfair labour practice, if the act is likely to occur. No such case having been instituted, the application under regulation 32(2) could not lie. That being so, to would be an exercise' in futility to deal with the question of contempt arising from allege violation of an order passed on that application. The appeal, therefore, cannot be maintained.
5. Even otherwise, no sentence having been passed on the contempt application, an appeal would not lie under section 22-D of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The dismissal of a complaint or the acquittal of the accused in a criminal case, not being appealable, the dismissal of a contempt petition, too, would hardly merit a different treatment.
6. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine for want of maintainability.
A.A./101/Lb./I.R.C.