' This is a complaint filed under section 53 read with sections 15 and 16 of the S.R.O., 1969 against 12 respondents including the office-bearers of H.M.C. Awami Labour Union, Taxila and four Managers of the Establishment. The notices were served upon the respondents who have appeared in person and have also filed their comments through their counsel.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their help has perused the record of the case. Before holding inquiry into the merits of the case I consider it proper to first deal with the legal objections as to the maintainability of the complaint, raised by the learned counsel for the respondent/accused.
3. The complaint is mainly based upon the allegation of unfair labour practice, allegedly committed by the respondents on 4-12-1993, as narrated in para. No,4 of the complaint, while the instant complaint is filed on 4-7-1994, i,e, after a delay of about 10 months. Such a long delay in the filing of this complaint is totally unexplained. The appellant has not uttered a single word in the complaint nor in the supporting documents. If there is no justified explanation to such delay, not only it creates doubts, the benefit of which goes to the accused, but also, the very complaint itself becomes doubtful and unreliable, especially in the circumstances where admittedly litigation in the other Courts were also pending between the parties. Support can be obtained from the case law reported in PLC 1963 Labour 58 and 1968 PCr.LJ 392. The arguments that because it is not a civil case, therefore, no limitation is provided for it is misleading. It is not the provisions of the Limitation Act under which such delay becomes fatal but is a basic and well-settled principle of criminal law.
Therefore, in .My view this complaint, being not tendering any plausible or justified explanation of such delay, is not maintainable and is, therefore, dismissed without, any' further proceedings.