This judgment will dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous No.135/Q of 1987 (Mirza Riaz Baig v. District Manager etc.), Criminal Miscellaneous No.136/Q of 1987 (Abdul Hakim Tahir v. District Manager etc.), Criminal Miscellaneous No. 137/Q of 1987 (Abdul Wakeel v. District Manager etc.), Criminal Miscellaneous 138/Q of 1987 (Tariq Mahmood Butt v. District Manager etc.) Criminal Miscellaneous No.139/Q of 1987 (Liaqat Ali Butt v.
District Manager etc.) and Criminal Miscellaneous No.140/Q of 1987 (Ghulam Rasool v. District Manager etc.) as common questions of law and facts arise in all these matters. Shortly stated the facts are that there was a labour dispute between the parties and in consequence thereof it was alleged that on 2-3-1987 petitioners and others raised objectionable slogans against the Government and the respondent District Manager. Accordingly on the statement of the District Manager Muhammad Bashir Chaudhary a criminal case under section 506/186/353/427/147, P.P.C. Was registered against the petitioners and others on 3-3-1987 at Police Station City Gujrat vide F.I.R. No.83 Annexure `B'. A separate complaint Annexure `A' was also instituted by the District Manager under sections 5 and 7 of Punjab Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1958 before learned Special Magistrate on the same allegations against the petitioners.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel that petitioners are members of the Punjab Road Transport Workers Union. The said Union has entered into a compromise with respondent No.1 resolving their differences. In consequence, the criminal case vide Annexure `B' was allowed to be withdrawn by the learned District Magistrate, Gujrat and thus the petitioners were acquitted by him on 27-9-1989. In the meantime departmental proceedings were also initiated against the petitioners and others. According to the learned counsel even the said departmental proceedings against the petitioners were also withdrawn by the District Manager, P.R.T.C., Gujrat on 12-12-1989. Learned counsel further says that suspension orders issued against petitioners were also withdrawn by the District Manager on 18-12-1989 in view of the compromise mentioned above. It is argued that by implication the impugned complaint vide Annexure `A' also stood withdrawn by respondent No.1 in view of the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Learned Additional Advocate-General does not challenge the contentions having been raised and argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners. He is also of the view that in view of the compromise between the parties, the complaint pending before the learned Special Magistrate has also lost its legal significance.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and have perused the record. No one appears on behalf of respondent No.1. Certified copies of the order, dated 27-9-1989, 12-12-1989 and 18-12- 1989 have been placed on the record. Perusal of these three orders would demonstrate beyond doubt that petitioners and respondent No.1 have resolved their controversy by entering into a compromise. The challan case was permitted to be withdrawn by the learned District Magistrate on 27-9-1989. Departmental proceedings having been initiated against the petitioners were also withdrawn by respondent No.1. Petitioners are performing their official duties in the Department. It is clear from the background of the case that the parties have compromised the dispute. There is no dispute now left between the parties. Respondent No.1 despite service is not present. It appears that he is no more interested in the prosecution of his complaint. Learned Law Officer as already observed above does not oppose the petition in view of the compromise between the parties.
By implication it can be said that respondent No.1 has also withdrawn the complaint having been instituted by him against the petitioners. Admittedly the allegations in the complaint, Annexure `A' and the F.I.R. Annexure `B' are almost the same. In this view of the matter, the proceedings pending before respondent No.2 are mere abuse of the process of Court and as such the same are quashed. Accordingly the petitions succeed and are allowed.