ORDER This is a proceeding under section 38(5) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called the Ordinance), at the instance of the Presiding Officer of Labour Court No. III, Karachi, against Mr. S. P. Lodhi, Labour Representative. The allegation against Mr. Lodhi is alleged to be contempt. Mr. Lodhi had made an application under section 36-E of the Ordinance. The Court in that application was dictating the following order :-- "Complainant present with his representative and heard. The copies of orders are filed. Perused the record. Offence appears to fall under section 36-E,
1. R. O. It is not necessary to prosecute all the accused. The main accused Manager only need be prosecuted at the moment. I take cognizance against him only and direct issue of summons to him subject to clarification to be given by the complainant regarding him as two persons are shown as Managers. This clarification be given by the complainant in writing by 24-10-1973.
Complaint to be registered and process to be issued only after this clarification."
2. While the above order was being written and announced, Mr. S. P. Lodhi, interrupted and offered to insult and to annoy the Court, as would appear from the Order-Sheet written then and there. It reads as under : "As the aforesaid diary was being written and announced, Mr. Lodhi (Representative of the complainant) started objecting to the direction regarding non-registration and stay of process pending clarification regarding the real Manager/Accused. He then misbehaved causing aspersions on Court's working and stating that a strange order has been passed and that his client does not know as to who is the Manager. He was warned to behave properly in Court and then he went away with his client saying that he has a right to interrupt. Hence this note is recorded for necessary reports to be made thereafter."
3. In my opinion, the case did fall under section 38(5) of the Ordinance, which reads as under :-- "The tribunal shall have authority to punish for contempts of its authority or that of any Labour Court subject to its appellate jurisdiction, as if it were a High Court." I issued notice to Mr. Lodhi for contempt of Court. y 4. Mr. Mohsin Tayab Ali, the learned Advocate, appeared for Mr. Lodhi and raised two-fold contentions before me. He contended, in the first place, that the allegation is too vague to amount to contempt of Court. He wanted particulars of the contempt of Court, ln my opinion, the allegations are very specific and do not need any further clarification.
5. In the second place, the learned Advocate, contended that Mr. Lodhi had not committed any contempt of the Authority of the Court. In this connection, he made a reference to the wide powers conferred under section 22-C on the Industrial Commission for contempt. Section 22-C{a) of the Ordinance reads as under:-- "The Commission shall have power to punish any person who obstructs or abuses its process or disobeys any of its orders or directions, or does anything which tends to prejudice the case of a party before it, or tends to bring it or any of its members in relation to proceedings of the Commission into hatred or contempt), or does anything which, by law, constitutes contempt of Court, with simple imprisonment which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both; and ...
6. In this connection, Mohsin also made a reference to Article 204 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (hereinafter called the Constitution), which confers on the Supreme Court of Pakistan and the High Courts, power to punish any person for contempt of Court. Sub-clause (2) cf Article 204 the Constitution reads as under : "(2) A Court shall have power to punish any person who-- (a) abuses, interferes with or obstructs the process of the Court in any way or disobeys any order of the Court; or (b) scandalizes the Court or otherwise does anything which tends to bring the Court or a Judge in relation to his office into hatred, ridicule or contempt; or (c) does anything which tends to prejudice the determination of a matter pending before the Court ; or (d) does any other thing which by law, constitutes contempt of the Court."
7. The learned Advocate submitted that a distinction must be made between the power conferred on the Supreme Court and the High Courts and this tribunal to punish for contempt of Court. There is not much force in this contention. Under subsection (5) of section 38 of the Ordinance, I havel the power to punish anybody for contempt of Court, as if I were a High1 Court. Therefore, the provision of Article 204 of the Constitution can be| pressed into service by me while dealing with contempt of Court.
8. Lastly, it was submitted by the learned Advocate for Mr. Lodhi that the intention of Mr. Lodhi was not to commit any contempt of Court in the sense as we ordinarily understand. I do not accept this contention. However, 1 am prepared to believe that in the heat of the moment, Mr. Lodhi acted ini the manner in which he should net have, but it does amount to contempt I I have given considerable thought to the punishment which should be imposed and in this context I have borne in mind the circumstance that it has been held by many authorities that Courts should not be unduly sensitive about their dignity and that the absolute power of contempt should be exercised withfaution,
9. On the other hand, I have also kept in mind that the dignity of the Labour Courts must be maintained, if they are to function effectively and enjoy the confidence of the litigating public. Mr. Lodhi is a very senior Labour Representative, who is also the President of the Labour Court's Representatives' Association and for both the reasons he is expected to maintain a high. standard of decorum and in fact set an example to other Representatives.
10. However, on this occasion keeping in mind all these circum stances I feel that the ends of justice would be met by my warning Mr. Lodhi to refrain from such conduct in future and if unfortunately any such matter is again referred to this tribunal then it will have no alternative but to award a deterrent sentence. I am, however, confident that Mr. Lodhi will co-operate with all the Labour Courts and not give cause for such a complaint in future.
11. With these observations, I discharge the notice for contempt of Court.