' This is a complaint under section 15 read with section 53 of the IRO, 1969 wherein notices were served upon the respondents. The respondents Nos.2 and 3 have filed their comments contending certain preliminary objections to the maintainability of the complaint. Before proceeding further in order to hold certain inquiries or to frame charge upon the accused persons, the parties were invited to submit their arguments on the maintainability of the complaint.
2. I have the complainant in person and the counsel for the respondents in detail and have carefully examined the record of the case.
3. The objection of the learned counsel for the respondents, that the complainant has been dismissed on 10-9-1990, and he was no more an employee of the respondent after 10-9-1990, and therefore, has no right to invoke the provisions of the IRO, 1969, is not well-founded. The very definition of a worker or workman include person, who has been dismissed, discharged and even retrenched from employment in connection with industrial dispute for convenience the provisions of section 2(2) item No, (XVIII) of the IRO, 1969 are reproduced as under:- "'Worker' and 'workman' means any person not falling within the definition of employer who is employed (including employment as supervisor or as an apprentice) in an establishment or industry for hire or reward either directly or through a contractor whether the terms of employment be expressed or implied, and, for the purpose of any proceedings under this Ordinance in relation to an industrial dispute includes a person who has been dismissed, discharged, retrenched, laid off or otherwise removed from employment in connection with or a consequence of that dispute or whose dismissal discharge, retrenchment, lay off, or removal has led to that dispute..... "
' Admittedly such Industrial Dispute is still pending before the Superior Courts for adjudication, therefore, this objection is set aside. In this connection reference can also be made to the judgment of the Division Bench of Sindh High Court reported in 1993 PLC 57.
4. The allegations of unfair labour practice against the present accused persons, pertains to year 1990, while the complaint has been filed on or about 26-3-1994-before this Commission i.e, after about three and a half years after the incidence even without any explanation of such delay.
Admittedly, the complainant was dismissal from service by the respondent establishment on 10-9- 1990, and according to contents of the complaint itself, such dismissal of the complainant was a result of victimization on account of trade union activities of the complainant; meaning thereby that the act of unfair labour, practice, if committed, was complete on 10-9-1990. Beside, the complainant has already chosen the forum available for civil litigation under the IRO, 1969, and in this connection litigation is still going on between the parties, therefore, such controversy between the parties which is of civil nature cannot be converted into Criminal litigation at this stage. The complaint is thus, not maintainabl on this score. Besides, the body of the complaint as well as the prayer clause makes it very much clear that the complainant is mainly annoyed with the filing of the Criminal Case No, 4(21)/90--Lahore which according to him was a fabricated and false case and, therefore, an act of unfair labour practice is established against the respondents, such type of allegations neither constitute any act of unfair labour practice within the scope of section 15 ,of the I.R.O., 1969 nor this Commission can hold that the complaint No,4(21)/90 was false while deciding this case. The complainant may have got various other remedies against his implication into a false case but the complaint in hand do not connect the accused persons/respondents with the Commission of the offence of unfair labour practice, therefore, the complaint is not maintainable and is dismissed without any further proceedings.