DECISION ' This application was moved by the applicant for taking action against the respondent under section 38(5) of IRO 1969 read with section 3 of Contempt of Court Act. In pursuance of this application, notice was issued against the respondent and subsequently charge under aforesaid sections was also framed against the respondent. None of the parties have examined themselves.
Only Mr. Hussain Ali, Joint Director was examined by the applicant and was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The only act of contempt alleged to have been committed by the respondent is the letter Annexure-A/1 admittedly written by the respondent to Labour Officer of Trade Unions East Division, Karachi.
3. The facts leading to these proceedings in brief are that the respondent had filed application under section 8(7) before the learned Labour Court challenging the change of office-bearers notified by the Registrar of Trade Unions. By way of interim order the learned Labour Court ordered the stay in change of office-bearers of Trade Union. This Tribunal vide its order dated 11-6-1989 in the Revision Application while dismissing the Revision. Application interpreted that order of the learned Labour Court to mean that by this order (of the learned Labour Court) the position as it stood before the change was affected by the Registrar was restored by the learned Labour Court; to be more specific the office-bearers who were elected on 5-7-1988 were allowed to continue to work as office-bearers till further orders.
4. After the aforesaid decision of this Tribunal the respondent wrote a letter Annexure-A/1 to the Registrar of Trade Unions in which he claimed that as the Revision Application, was dismissed by this Tribunal, the decision would mean that Mr. Amir Hussain Shah, Joint Secretary was to continue working as General Secretary and that the Labour Officer had no locus standi to issue letter regarding change of office-bearers or interpreting the order or judgment passed by the learned Labour Court or Labour Appellate Tribunal.
5. This might be misinterpretation of the order of this Tribunal, but the element of mens rea appears to be lacking. No overt act is alleged to have been committed except writing this letter, which could show that the respondent disobeyed the order of the Tribunal. It may also be pointed that admittedly after the order of this. Tribunal the parties agreed to hold fresh election and that fresh elections have been held. The parties have again started fresh round of litigation. Under the circumstances I do not find any need to proceed further with these proceedings. The notice issued against the respondent is discharged.
6. Mr. Shahani contends that interpretation of the orders of this Tribunal by the parties may lead to misinterpretation of the orders and may result in disobedience of orders of the Court. It is proper that when the parties who are represented they should have the orders of the Courts or Tribunals interpreted by their advocates, otherwise they would be taking risk of committing contempt of Court, if they commit any overt act in disregard of the orders of the Court or Tribunal.
7. With this observation the proceedings are discharged. The bail bond of respondent is cancelled.