DECISION ' Admittedly the order of this Tribunal dated 24-44988 has not been complied with. It is submitted by Mr. Latif Saghar, that there are certain difficulties as financial conditions of the respondents are in dire straints. Be that as it may, it would not absolve the respondents from compliance of the order of this Tribunal.
2. I have heard Mr. Rafiq Malik, learned Advocate for the applicant and Ch. Muhammad Latif Saghar, learned Advocate for the respondent and have also gone through the record of the case.
3. The non-compliance of the order of the Tribunal is also punishable under section 25-A(8) of the I.R.O., 1969. Mr. Rafiq Malik informs that such complaint was filed before the learned Labour Court but was dismissed on the ground, that the complaint was not filed by the Tribunal as required under section 25-A(9) of the I.R.O., 1969 and because no notice of the compliance was served upon the contemner/respondent. So far notice of compliance is concerned, I need not go into the question whether such notice was necessary. However sufficient notice has now been given to the contemners/respondents in shape of the complaint in the learned Labour Court, as well as in the contempt proceedings in this Tribunal. However the complaint could not have been filed directly by the applicant before the Labour Court but had to be filed by this Tribunal, as no period for compliance was specified in the order. The circumstances of this case require recording of evidence to find out why order was not complied with. Proper course would be to file complaint in the Labour Court under section 25-A(8) of I.R.O., 1969. The Registrar of this Tribunal is directed to file such complaint within 15 days. The contempt application is disposed of in the above terms.