DECISION ' This is an Application under section 38(3-a) of IRO, 1969 filed by the applicants invoking suo motu revisional jurisdiction of this Tribunal with the prayer to examine the legality, correctness and propriety of the order of learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No, VI at Hyderabad, who ordered issuance of summons against the officers of Applicants on a complaint No, 6 of 1990 filed by the respondent under sections 54 and 55 of IRO, 1969.
2. I have heard Mr. Mehmood A. Ghani for the Applicants and Mr. S.P. Lodhi for the respondent and have also gone through the relevant papers filed by the applicants alongwith the relevant application.
3. The brief facts of the ease appear to be that the respondent claims to be Joint Secretary of CBA union of the workers of the applicant establishment. A settlement was concluded between the parties on 7-2-1985 which was effective upto 31st December, 1986. Another agreement was concluded between the CBA and the applicant on 4-5-1989 which was in operation and binding upto 31-12-1990. The agreement of 1985 contained clause 10(b) which reads as under:- ' It is mutually agreed that Memorandum of Settlement/Agreement will be in English. It is further mutually agreed that all correspondence with the Union and the workmen will be done in Urdu language effective from 1-3-1985."
4. On 27th March, 1990 the applicant establishment affixed notice on the Notice Board with regard to bonus payable to each category of workers. This notice was in English. The respondent considering it a breach of the aforementioned clause of the settlement filed a complaint against three officers of the applicant establishment namely Zain A. Alvi, S.A. Naqvi and Abdul Sattar Rawada under sections 54 and 55 of IRO, 1969. The learned Labour Court was pleased to issue summons for appearance of above-mentioned accused persons.
5. The applicant claims that the agreement of 1985 containing aforementioned clause was not in force in March 1990 when the notice was affixed on the Notice Board and that there was no similar clause (h) of agreement of 1989. It was further alleged that this action of the respondent is mala fide as applicants had initiated domestic proceedings, against him and issued charge-sheet against him on 13-11-1989.
6. Admittedly there is no clause in settlement of 1989 similar to clause 10(h) of the settlement of 1985. Mr. S.P. Lodhi has however contended that at page 17 of the settlement of 1989 there is a para to the effect "existing terms and conditions of employment shall continue except to the extent modified by this settlement". He contends that under this clause of agreement clause 10(h) of the settlement of 1985 would be deemed to have been continued. This clause of the agreement of 1989 is, under the heading Cost of Living Allowance. The existing terms and conditions of employment referred to in the clause of agreement of 1989 ordinarily would be with reference to Cost of Living Allowance under which heading this clause appears. However, under no stretch of imagination the agreement of the establishment to enter into correspondence with the union and the workers in Urdu can be considered to be one of the terms and conditions of the employment of workers.
7. Mr. Mehmood A. Ghani in support of his contention that this clause of agreement of 1985 was no more in force has produced certain correspondence between the applicant and the workmen.
Annexures C-16 to C-26 are applications made by various workers and pertain to the year 1988. All these correspondence are in English addressed to the applicants. Annexure-C/27 is a letter of the applicants addressed to the General Secretary of the CBA union, it is dated 27-2-1989. Annexure- C/28 is reply which is signed by General Secretary of Union and is dated 6-3-1989. It is in English language.
8. Mr. Mehmood A. Ghani has further contended that action of the respondent in filing the complaint was mala fide with intent to harass the officers of the applicant establishment. In support he has produced a judgment of the NIRC dated 9-12-1990 whereby the application tiled by respondent against applicants for unfair labour practice was dismissed by learned member of the NIRC. The applicants have also filed a charge-sheet Annexure-/6 dated 13-11-1989 wherein the respondent is alleged to have committed certain acts of misconduct-and he was asked to show cause as to why action should not be taken against him: This charge-sheet in signed by Mr. SA.
Naqvi one of the accused in the complaint filed by the respondent. Annexure-C/6 is intimation to the respondent that enquiry has been ordered to be held against him and that he should appear before Mr. Rizvi, Chief Accountant who had been appointed as Enquiry Officer. This is also signed by Mr. Naqvi.
9. From the aforementioned documentary evidence it is clear that there was no clause in the existing agreement of 1989 which was in force at the relevant time binding the applicants to enter into correspondence in Urdu with the union or workers. The documentary evidence further shows that the correspondence was entered into between workers union and the respondent in English in the year 1988 and 1989. The relations between the parties also appear to be not cordial and the respondent did appear to have some grievance against the applicant either genuine or otherwise.
From the facts of the ease as disclosed in the complaint, copy of which has been produced as Annexure-C/1, no offence appears to be made out as there appears to be no violation of the settlement in force. The filing of the complaint under the circumstances by the respondent in view of his relations with the applicant appears to be an abuse of the process of Court.
10. For the aforementioned reasons the order of the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh. Labour Court No,VI in issuing process against the officers of the applicant on such complaint of respondent appears to be improper and incorrect and it is therefore set aside. The complaint of the respondent stands dismissed as no prima facie case has been made out against the accused persons in the said complaint. The revision accordingly.