' The question raised in this application filed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. May be stated in a very few words, but the answer is by no means free from difficulty.
2. Nawab Asghar, the applicant No,1 is the ex-Chairman and Managing Director while Muhammad Ishaque the applicant No,3 is the ex-Director Personnel of Messrs Pfizer Laboratories Ltd., Karachi.
Zulfiqar Hussain Zaidi, the applicant No,2 is at present Labour Officer of the said company.
Muhammad Ali Azam, the respondent No,2 was employed as Team Leader/Charge-hand, Quality Control Process Department of Messrs Pfizer Laboratories Ltd., Karachi, who was dismissed from service with effect from 23-7-1987 on the charge of misconduct..It is alleged that the dismissal order was duly served upon respondent No,2 through all possible modes. However, the respondent No,2 filed an application under section 22-A(8)(2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and under Regulation 32(2)(c) of the National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973, before the Chairman, National Industrial Relations Commission, Islamabad, bearing Case No,4-A (202)/87 and 24(221)/87. The respondent No,2 also applied for interim relief, which was granted on 3-8-1987 in the following terms:-- "Notice to the respondents for their comments. Respondents shall also furnish a copy of the enquiry report, if submitted. To 13-8-1987 for hearing at Islamabad. Meanwhile, final decision in the result of the enquiry shall not be taken."
3. The applicants raised legal objections about the maintainability of the said application by stating that the respondent No,2 had already been dismissed on 23-7-1987, which prevailed upon learned Chairman, National Industrial Relations Commission, who recalled the said order on 30-8- 1987. The respondent No,2 filed another application under section 22-C of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, alleging 'contempt of Court against the applicants. On 19-10-1988 the Member, National Industrial Relations Commission dismissed the main case filed by respondent No,2. The appeal filed against this order was also dismissed by Full Bench of National Industrial Relations Commission of 7-3-1990. The application for contempt of Court, however, remained pending and at the request of respondent No,2, the A.D. Receipt produced by the applicants to prove that the dismissal order was served upon him was referred to Handwriting Expert. On receipt of the report of the expert, the learned Member, National Industrial Relations Commission issued notice to applicants to show cause as to why they may not be punished for contempt of Court. It is in these circumstances that the applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer that the proceedings of Case No,7(106)/87, under section 22-C of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, initiated by the Member, National Industrial Relations Commission against them may be quashed.
4. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Humayun Hassan, learned counsel for applicants, Mr. Malik M.
Saeed, learned counsel for respondent No,2, and Mr. Habibur Rasheed, learned counsel for the State.
5. Before examining the contentions raised on behalf of applicants, I propose to dispose of a preliminary objection that has been urged on behalf of respondent No,2. Mr. Malik M. Said, learned counsel for respondent No,2 has contended with force that there has been no order passed by a Criminal Court and consequently the provisions of section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Were not attracted. The case of Dr. Asaf Hussain Jafri v. K.B. Bhutto, Advocate reported in PLD 1990 Kar. 173, provides an answer to this objection wherein it was made clear that the proceedings in a case of contempt of Court are quasi-criminal in nature. In the case of Mian Munir Ahmad v. The State reported in 1985 SCM R 257, the Supreme Court of Pakistan had observed that the High Court is empowered to exercise its jurisdiction under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., with respect to proceedings in any Court. At page 262 it was remarked:- "It would be noticed that section 435, Cr.P.C. Expressly provides that the High Court can exercise its revisional jurisdiction only with respect to the proceedings pending before Criminal Courts, inferior to it, whereas section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Makes no mention of inferior or subordinate Courts and empowers the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction thereunder with respect to proceedings in any Court."
6. I may also usefully borrow the terse observation of Aslam Riaz Hussain, J. (as he then was) made in the above-cited judgment in the following words:-- "The matter, in our view, is not to be adjudged on the basis as to whether or not a Labour Court is subordinate to the High Court or whether an appeal from its decision lies to the High Court or some other forum. What is to be determined is whether the provisions of section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Apply to criminal proceedings pending before the Presiding Officer of a Labour Court. If section 561-A, Cr.P.C.
Applies 'then the High Court can certainly exercise its jurisdiction under the said section."
7. Thus, from whatever point of view the matter may be looked at, the objection raised on behalf of respondent No,2 cannot be sustained.
8. I now proceed to examine the contentions raised on behalf of applicants. As regards the main question about the maintainability of application for contempt of Court under section 22-C of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, after the disposal of main case in favour of applicants, the learned counsel has very little to say. A criminal contempt consists in doing of something designed to obtain a result different from that which would follow in the ordinary course. Such a contempt can, therefore, be committed at any stage of the case and once it is committed it cannot be erased by any subsequent development or result of the case.
9. As observed in the case of Ghulam Muhammad v. Muzammal Khan and 4 others, reported in PLD 1967 SC 317, it is generally accepted that the inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A, Cr.P.C.
Should not normally be invoked where another remedy is available. The inherent powers are preserved to meet a lacuna in extraordinary cases and are not intended for vesting the High Courts with powers to make any order which they are pleased to consider to be in the interest of justice. The applicants have approached this Court hurriedly without putting their appearance before the Member, National Industrial Relations Commission in reply to show-cause notice. They did not file their explanation to show-cause notice. The application made under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Was thus premature.
10. The applicants had again a remedy before the Full Bench of National Industrial Relations Commission if at any stage of the case an order was passed against them. In the case of Ghulam Muhammad v. Muzammal Khan and 4 others, referred to above, the Supreme Court of Pakistan made it clear that the inherent jurisdiction given by section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Is not an alternative jurisdiction or an additional jurisdiction but it is a jurisdiction preserved in the interest of justice to redress grievances for which no other procedure is available or has been provided by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, itself. The power given by this section can certainly not be so utilised as to interrupt or divert the ordinary course of criminal procedure as laid down in the procedural statute.
In view of the above position, there is no room left for the argument that the proceedings initiated against the applicants amount to an abuse of process of law. The application filed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Has got no merits and is accordingly dismissed.