DECISION This information under section 38(3-a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, has been laid in the following circumstances.
The General Secretary of the Silver Cotton Mills Ltd., had submitted an application to the Secretary of the Labour Department, Government of Sindh through the Director, Labour, Hyderabad for appointing an Auditor for auditing the accounts of the respondent-Mill of which the respondent No. 1 is, the Managing Director and the respondent No. 2, the Manager, under section 23-D of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Government of Sindh had nominated M/s. N.G. Hashmi & Company, Karachi Chartered Accountants for the same vide Notification dated 8-9-1986. It is alleged that the respondents were resorting to all sorts of hindrances and impediments to avoid inspection, and there was a spate of correspondence between the parties. Even when it was notified that there was no dispute between the CBA and the respondent-Mill, a letter was sent by the Section Officer of the Government of Sindh, that even in case of an agreement the accounts were to be audited in accordance with' subsection (13) of section 23-B of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and if facilities were not provident to the auditor within a week of the receipt of this letter, they shall be liable for prosecution under section 23-F of the said Ordinance. As compliance was not made as directed, Abdul Sattar Daudpota, Assistant Director, Labour was authorised by the Government to file a complaint.
2. Apart from the complainant, Usman Ghani from N.G. Hashmi & Company Chartered Accountants, and Azhar Muhammad the General Secretary were examined in support of the prosecution. The accused in their statements denied the allegations made against them.
3. Ultimately for the reasons given by the learned Presiding Officer, the accused now respondents were acquitted at the trial, culminating in this revision petition.
4. Service was not being effected on the respondents and ultimately notice was pasted on the door of the Head Office of the Mill by order dated 14-9-1993. However, nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondents and I have heard only Mr. Rafique Ahmed on behalf of the informant.
5. The order shows that there was a complaint filed earlier by Abdul Sattar Daudpota and the same was dismissed on 16-4-1988.1 will refrain from making any comments about this aspect of the matter or about the maintainability of the complaint as I am of the opinion that the application is liable to be dismissed on the simple ground that prosecution was misconceived.
6. Usman Ghani in his statement at the trial had stated that on the receipt of the letter from the Section Officer referred to earlier, the respondents had notified in their reply that they would afford all the facilities to the Auditors in the discharge of their function in accordance with subsection (12) of section 23-B of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and that the Auditors may be informed accordingly. That was dated 25th of August, 1987. .
7. Usman Ghani in 'his cross-examination had admitted that "it was they who had granted adjournment up to 1-10-1987" and further that "after 1-10-1987 we did not contact the Silver Cotton Mills by sending any such letter for carrying out the audit of the respondent".
8. In view of this admission, it cannot be said that the respondents had any thing to answer for.
9. I will therefore uphold the order and dismiss the application.