The brief facts are that the complainant alleged that the accused persons contravened the provision of section 23-B, clauses (10) to (12) of I.R.O., 1969 and so he obtained the permission from Registrar of Trade Unions, Karachi for prosecuting the accused under section 62 of I.R.O. 1969 and that permission filed as Annexure was given under section 13-B of I.R.O. Thereafter he filed the complaint in this Court and the process was issued against the accused persons thereon.
2. The learned counsel for the accused have raised preliminary objection to the effect that the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint as the contravention of section 23-B clauses
(10) to (12) was punishable under section 23-F for which the proper person to file a complaint is the Registrar, Trade Unions and as such the Registrar could not permit the complainant under section 13-B of I.R.O. to file the complaint. It is further asserted that section 62 of I.R.O. is not applicable in this case. It is also asserted that a previous complaint was also filed which was dismissed in default after notice to accused and so they will be treated as acquitted under section 247, Cr. P.C. and so the fresh complaint is barred under section 403, Cr. P.C.
3. I have heard Mr. Hummayyun partner of Mr. Ghulam Hassan and Mr. Mushtaq, Advocate for accused and complainant and the said legal points. The record shows that previously a complaint was filed on 9-4-1977 in which preliminary enquiry was ordered and the same was dismissed in default under section 203, Cr. P.C. on 27-5-1977. The accused have alleged that thereafter an application No, HYD-265/77 against that order was filed, and the order in that case is produced as R/2 which shows that the said order pertains to some other case and not the complaint which was dismissed on 27-5-1977. According to explanation to section 403, Cr. P.C. the dismissal of complaint does not amount to acquittal of accused and hence the dismissal of the previous, complaint cannot be a bar for fresh complaint. This point is therefore decided against the accused.
4. The main contention of the accused is that the Registrar of Trade Unions had to file the complaint himself and could not authorise the complainant to file complaint under section 13-B, I.R.O. Section 13 of I.R.O. deals with powers and functions of Registrar and the extract of sub-clause
(8) is, given as under:-- "Registrar to lodge or authorise any person to lodge complaint with the Labour Court or Commission for action including prosecution against employers and others for the alleged offence or violation of provisions of this Ordinance." This clause (8) was added in the I.R.O. by Act XVI of 1975. Section 23-F provides penalty for contravening section 23-B or 23-C and it is stated that any person contravening the said provision shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to Rs,2,000 or with both is further provided in clause (2) of that section that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under subsection (1) except upon a complaint in writing made by the Registrar. This provision of section 23-B was added in I.R.O. by Act XI of 1976 which was published in Gazette of Pakistan, Extraordinary, Part I dated 15-4-1976. Section 62 of I.R.O. is a residuary section which applies for punishment in cases in which no other penalty is provided by the Ordinance. As the penalty for contravention of section 23-B is provided under section 23-F of I.R.O., section 62 will have no application in the present case. The provision of section 13-B of I.R.O. is a general provision which was inserted in I.R.O. in the year 1975 which authorises the Registrar of Trade Unions to permit any person to file a complaint and section 23-F was added in 1976 by Act XI of 1976 published in Gazette of Pakistan on 10-4-1976. I therefore feel that the provision of section 23-F will apply as an exception to section 13-B and as such in the present case the proper authority to file the complaint was the Registrar himself and he could not authorise any person to file the complaint. The complainant has asserted that section 23-F should be read with section 13-B and as such the complainant could be authorised by the Registrar of Trade Unions to file the complaint under section 62 of the I.R.O. It is already held above that section 62 has no application in this case and as such section 23-F applies and according to that section prosecution could be filed by a complaint signed by the Registrar of Trade Unions. I therefore cannot agree with the complainant that the Registrar of Trade Unions could authorise him to file a complaint under section 13-B read with section 23-F for filing complaint under section 62. It has been held in PLD 1977 Kar. 83 that special provision always overrides provision of general nature in the same Act.
5. In view of the aforesaid discussion of the legal position I hold that the permission accorded by the Registrar of Trade Unions Sindh, Karachi, vide his No, DLS/LL-20(71)/77/1091, dated 2-4-1977 to the complainant under section 13-B for prosecution of accused under section 62 for contravention of section 23B(12) of I.R.O. could not be legally given being in contravention of section 23-F of I.R.O.
Thus the complainant has got no locus standi to file the complaint nor the complaint under section 62 of I.R.O. is maintainable as discussed above. There is no probability of accused being convicted for an offence under section 62, I.R.O. I therefore, acquit the accused under section 249-A, Cr.P.C.