' This is a petition under section 22-A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969 filed by the employer i,e, Associated Press of Pakistan (APP) through its Executive Director, Islamabad against 23 respondents with the following prayer:-- "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the respondents and through them all the office-bearers, members, journalists etc. May be restrained to publish any statement or hold any press conference or publish any other item in the news media concerning the removal of the said ex-employees of the A.P.P. Or publish any other libellous material against the Director-General and Executive Director and other Executive Staff of the petitioner-establishment A.P.P. They may be restrained from interfering in the affairs of the management or disturb the working of the management. They may be further directed not to hold any meeting, deliver speeches, take out processions or commit other acts of unfair labour practices and adopt coercive methods as defined under section 16 of the I.R.O., 1969."
' Considering the averments, the petition was registered and interim injunction order was granted in favour of the petitioner on 23-11-1995.
2. The petition was strongly contested by way of filing of written statement and rejoinder to the stay application wherein certain preliminary legal objections as to the maintainability of the petition were also raised.
3 . I have heard Mr. S. Rais Ahmed Jafri, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. M.K. Khan, Advocate and Mr. Ch. Tajamal Murad, Advocate for the respondents and also some other respondents who were present in person and have also considered the documents filed on record.
4. The main objection to the maintainability of the petition raised by the learned counsel Mr. Ch. Tajamal Murad, Advocate was that the petition was filed not only against the employees of the establishment of the petitioner but also against various other persons who were neither the employees of the respondents nor otherwise concerned with the affairs of respondent- establishment and, therefore, this Commission, in the exercise of its powers under the provisions of section 22-A(8)(g) read with section 16 of the I.R.O., 1969 cannot lawfully be passed any order against the stranger to the proceedings, or against the persons who are not the employees of the Establishment of Associated Press of Pakistan. In this connection I feel it necessary to observe that the provisions of section 16 of the I.R.O., 1969 can be invoked against, not only the workman i,e, employee or trade union of workmen but also against any 'person' as the word "other person" was included by way of amendment i,e, Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act (XVI) of 1975. Previously subsection (1) of section 16 contained only the following words:-- "Trade union of workmen and persons acting on behalf of such trade union." /Thus, the Legislature, by interpreting the word "other person" has extended the jurisdiction of this Commission under the provisions of section 16 of the I.R.O., 1969 upon any other person and all the respondents, either employees, office-bearers of trade union or the trade union itself do qualify this definition and, therefore, this Commission can exercise the jurisdiction upon them and pass an order which would be equally applicable and binding upon the respondents. The intention of the Legislature for the extension of the jurisdiction upon any person is also evident from the provision of section 53 of the I.R.O., 1969, specially subsection (2) wherein the following words are mentioned:-- Section 53(2) of the I.R.O., 1969: "Whoever contravenes the provisions of section 16, other than those of clause (d) of subsection (1) thereof, shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine which extend to five hundred rupees, or with both."
' It is also necessary to mention here that this amendment was also carried out by e Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act (XVI) of 1975 and, therefore, the word "whoever" expresses a very vast extension of jurisdiction of this Commission for the contravention of the provisions of section 16 of the I.R.O., 1969. The objection is, therefore, discarded and the petition held to be maintainable.
5. Regarding the merits of the case, the learned counsel for the respondents have categorically stated that neither they have committed any act of unfair labour practice within the meaning of section 16 of the I.R.O., 1969 against the petitioner, nor they intend to commit any such illegal act but will agitate for their rights and demands within the four corners of the provision of law, therefore, I do not feel any necessity to proceed further with the case and in view of the such statement, I deem it proper to pass a general restrainment order against the respondents i,e, not to commit any act of unfair labour practice against the petitioner within the meaning of section 16 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 in future. The petition is disposed of without any orders as to costs.