' This appeal is directed against order dated 5-10-1994 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No,1.
2. Relevant facts briefly mentioned are, that appellants alongwith, Fatch Muhammad, Muhammad Hanif and Azad Khan submitted application under section 25-A (10) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before Labour Court No,1, Quetta. Appellants asserted that they were permanent employees of Pak. P.W.D. And their services were duly regularised. Authorities transferred them form Pak P.W.D. To Project of Bolan Medical College, Quetta for performing their duty. It is mentioned in the grievance petition that appellants were restrained from entering Bolan Medical Complex.
However, appellants were paid salary up to January, 1991 besides department also delivered them cheques for certain amounts on 31st August, 1991. It is alleged that respondents have illegally stopped pay of the appellants from January 1991 onwards and orally informed them that dispute concerning their service was pending consideration before higher authorities. It is the case of appellants that a notice was served upon respondents in the month of January, 1993 and eventually grievance petition drafted on 26-9-1993 was filed in the Court on or about 11-10-1993.
Respondents resisted the claim and filed detailed written statement. It was asserted that appellants were work-charge employees and on transfer they declined to continue on work- charge basis in accordance with policy adopted by Provincial Government. According to respondents 48 work-charge employees including appellants who were unwilling to work were sent termination notices dated 9-9-1991. The assertions about stopping any employee on the gate of Bolan Medical College was expressly refuted. It was pleaded that Notice was sent after lapse of years, therefore, suffered from bar of limitation. Trial Court on 9-6-1094 framed following issues and gave parties opportunity of leading evidence:---
(1) Whether the termination of applicants is illegal?
(2) Whether the applicants are entitled to the relief claimed for?
(3) Relief.
' Record reveals that appellants apart from attorney Manzoor Ahmad have examined P.W. Haji Muhammad Yousuf to substantiate their claim. Whereas Project Director Bolan Medical College, Rahim Khan Zarkoon appeared in rebuttal. Learned Presiding Officer Labour Court on appraisement of material available on record rejected the grievance petition vide order dated 29-9-1994. Feeling aggrieved, present appeal has been filed.
' Mr. SA.M. Quadri learned counsel for appellants emphatically contended that legal and factual aspects have been completely misappreciated and misinterpreted by trial Court causing prejudice to the appellants. He further argued that proper opportunity to substantiate their claim has not been provided to appellants, besides trial Court seriously erred in declining to record statements of appellants which according to him were material for resolving the controversy.
Learned counsel urged that trial Court has decided question of limitation without framing any issue or allowing opportunity to appellants for explaining this aspect. It was, however, maintained that cause of action has accrued during June, 1993 when authorities ultimately refused absorption of appellants, therefore, claim does not suffer from bar of limitation. Reliance was placed on the observation of cases (a) 1994 PLC (C.S.) 305 at 307 (WAPDA through Chairman v. Muhammad Hussain Gull) and (b) 1992 PLC (Labour) 665 (Hamid Ahmad Khan v. Presiding Officer, 4th Sindh Labour Court).
' Mr. Tariq Mehmood, Advocate for respondent No,2 vehemently opposing the appeal argued that appellants were provided full and fair opportunity of leading evidence despite unnecessary dialatory tactics adopted on their behalf. Learned counsel contended that statement of attorney has been duly recorded, therefore, request for examining appellants had no legal sanctity.
Assertion of paras. 13 and 14 of the memo. Of appeal were specifically challenged as mala fide.
Learned counsel stressed that it was obligatory for appellants to justify that claim had been instituted before the competent forum within the prescribed period of limitation. The duty is cast upon Court to examine question of limitation irrespective whether objection in this behalf is raised by either party. To supplement his submissions he placed reliance on (a) PLD 1985 SC 153, (b) 1991 SCMR 864, and (c) 1992 SCMR 1199.
' Whereas Mr. Yakub Khan Yousufzai, learned A.-G. Also effectively opposed the appeal and raised following contentions:---
(i) Appellants through attorney have unequivocally admitted that they were temporary employees merely on work-charge basis. Besides, they had refused to join duties with Project Director, Bolan Medical College Complex, Quetta, therefore, they have no right or legal entitlement for agitating grievance before Labour Court.
(ii) According to appellants' own showing, last pay was received by them up to January, 1991. On the basis of intervention of higher authorities: final settlement was made towards 31st August, 1991.
Whereas Grievance Notice has been issued on 16th August, 1991 after lapse of two years which is clearly barred by time. Section 5 of Limitation Act has not been made applicable, therefore, petition being barred has rightly been dismissed. He relied on the following reported judgments:---
(a) PLD 1970 Lahore 6 (Syed Muhammad Aslam v. Syed Mehdi Hussain).
(b) PLD 1978 Rev. 41 (Lt.-Col. Muhammad Hanif Khan v. Syed Rasool).
(c) PLD 1978 Rev. 78 (Haji Haqnawaz v. The State).
(d) PLD 1973 Quetta 35 (Sher Ali v. Manager, P.I.D.C.).
(iii) Learned Advocate-General contended that Ground-G and averments in the memo. Of appeal are highly unwarranted and require severe action against the counsel because unjustifiably attempt has been made to maligne the trial Court, He canvassed that ethics and rules of conduct demand that Advocates should maintain decorum, upholding majesty of Law and Courts.
According to him wilful attempts have been made by Advocate, for appellants while drafting the appeal, giving personal affidavit and making wild allegation, complete disregarding professional ethics and dignity of the Court. According to him such wild and improper assertions in the pleadings should not be lightly ignored. To supplement his submissions reliance was placed on the following decided cases:---
(a) PLD 1993 Quetta 1 (Mst. Dilshad Sultana v. Noor Muhammad).
(b) PLD 1993 Lahore 658 (The State v. Muhammad Akbar Cheema).
(c) 1993.SCMR 956 (Government of Sindh v. Saiful Haq Hashmi).
' Learned Deputy Attorney-General adopting above arguments added, that appellants have not reported for duty to Project Director, Bolan Medical College, Quetta. Having refused to comply with lawful order of competent Authority it is not open for appellants to agitate grievance before Labour Court.
' I have carefully considered the above arguments and carefully perused material on record: ' Firstly it may be seen that 48 employees of Pak. P.W.D.[ Quetta including appellants were transferred to the 'Project Director' (Works Bolan Medical College Complex, Quetta) on 9th September, 199L Some of the employees reported for duty and were inducted in said Project. It is the case of appellants that they had assumed status of permanent employees in Pak P.W.D., therefore, their transfer was void, however, cause for agitating grievance accrued when they were finally stopped by respondent No,1 towards June, 1993 from entering the office premises. Admittedly appellants receiyed their salaries only up to Janrry, 1991. Additional amount pursuant upon settlement was also paid to them and other employees towards 31st August, 1991. It is not understandable how without receiving the pay appellants continued performing their functions.
This highly improbable aspect has not been explained by them. Record is silent about continuous persuit, at different levels. Needless to say that repeated approaches to higher authorities or unconcerned functionaries of State does not extend limitation. For authority t, A reference can be made to the observations in following cases:-
(i) Rana Ghulam Sarwar v. Director of Inspection and Technical Development (1981 PLC (C.S.) 112).
(ii) Muhammad Azam v. Superintendent Police, Gujranwala (1981 PLC (C.S.) 216).
(iii) Dildar Hussain v. Superintendent Police, Multan (1981 PLC (C.S.) 617).
(iv) Malik Jehangir Khan v. Government of Punjab (1984 SCMR 458).
' Additionally the party approaching Court of competent jurisdiction of grievance beyond specified period of limitation is bound to explain each day's delay to the satisfaction of respective forum because a valuable right accrues to other side. In this behalf reference can be made to the observation in following reported judgments:---
(i) Government of Punjab v. Muhammad Salim (PLD 1995 SC 396).
(ii) Rehmatullah and others v. Ulas Khan (1968 SCMR 975)
(iii) Pak Railway v. Ghulam Sarwar (1989 SCMR 864).
' It may be seen that procedure and period for agitating grievances where right guaranteed to employees has been violated is specified and regulated by section 25-A, I.R.O. It is obligatory for the aggrieved person to satisfy the forum of competent jurisdiction that his claim does not suffer from any legal defect. There is absolutely no plausible explanation for inordinate delay in approaching Labour Court for redress of grievances culminating in present appeal. The above reported judgments relied upon by Mr. Tariq Mehmood for respondent No,2 clearly propound that irrespective of objection from either side, Court/forum trying a dispute is bound to examine whether or not claim instituted before it falls within prescribed period of limitation. Therefore, mere non-framing of issue when parties are aware about requirements of law and nature of grievance cannot be deemed fatal. It was undisputed an obligation upon aggrieved party to mention cogent reason for satisfying the Court about delay in approaching forum of competent jurisdiction for redress of his grievance. Neither any application for condonation of delay was submitted before the trial Court nor any case has been made out for exercising discretion in favour of appellants for condoning unexplained inordinate delay. Judgments relied upon by Mr. SA.M. Quadri, Advocate in the peculiar circumstances are of no help to appellants.
' Thorough scrutiny and analysis of evidence produced by the parties clearly discloses that appellants have not resumed duties in Bolan Medical Collage Complex. Admittedly appellants received their salaries till January, 1991. On the basis of settlement notice pay and other dues were also cleaned during August, 1991. Testimony of attorney Manzoor Ahmad also suggests that appellants were not permanent employees of Pak P.W.D. The witness Haji Muhammad Ashraf and attorney Manzoor Ahmad have attempted to express that appellants have been performing duties in Bolan Medical College, Complex from January, 1991 till June, 1993. Rahim Khan Zarkoon Project Director Bolan Medical College Complex has unequivocally denied assertions made by witness Muhammad Ashraf and attorney Manzoor Ahmad. There is' absolutely no document produced or summoned by the appellants which may substantiate performance of their duties in the Complex of Bolan Medical College. Attorney or witnesses have not been able to specify nature of work allegedly carried out by appellants in the Complex. The disjointed and vague statements about performing duties from January, 1991 to June, 1993 is neither plausible, or believable nor convincing.
Learned Presiding Officer has elaborately dealt with all aspects, therefore, conclusions in the impugned judgment do not suffer from any patent illegality, material defect, glaring impropriety or legal infirmity. It may be seen that appellants whether temporary, permanent or work-charge employees have legal Obligation to join duties so directed by the competent Authority. Thus, failure to comply with lawful orders, does not entitle them to seek remedy before the Court of law.
Accordingly on merits, the appeal has no substance.
' Now examining the last limb of arguments advanced by learned Advocate-General and endorsed by other counsel appeared in the matter, it may be seen that bare reading of paras. 13 and 14 coupled with grounds (C) and (G) of memo. Of appeal, is sufficiently offensive. There is apparent attempt to malign the trial Court. An Advocate being an officer of the Court is duty bound to use selective words, while drafting pleadings. He must avoid disparaging remarks and improper language likely to affect glory and supremacy of law. The Advocate appearing on behalf of party before Court of law must maintain professional ethics and abstain from using impolite language or adopting distasteful conduct. The Division Bench of this Court while deciding case Mst. Dilshad Sultana v. Noor Muhammad and others (PLD 1993 Quetta 1) made following observation:--- "Mr. Raja Rab Nawaz levelled serious allegation in this behalf against the Presiding Officer but he could not substantiate the same. We are minded to initiate proper action against petitioner but decided to exercie restraint because if any action is initiated against her she would land yet into another difficulty, however, we are constrained to make observations that while giving instructions to the Advocates litigants should be very careful before casting any type of aspersion on the authority-of Presiding Officer of the Court and should refrain from imputing baseless and ill- founded allegation because if a serious view is taken by the Courts it may entail severe consequences. It is also important to mention here that worthy Advocates who being the officers of the Court are also equally responsible to ensure that Presiding Officers are not maligned and involved unnecessarily."
' Similarly Full Bench of Lahore High Court has made following observations in case The State v.
Muhammad Akbar Cheema (PLD 1993 Lah. 658): "13. The majesty of law cannot be maintained without maintaining discipline and decorum of the Courts. If such a conduct is not curbed with heavy hand, no judicial proceedings can ever be held.
The decorum of judicial proceedings is to be maintained more for arriving at the truth and just determination of the litigated right or obligation. The respect that litigants, public in general and the lawyers extend to a Presiding Judge is also for the purpose of maintaining majesty of law. It is justice more than anything else which can ensure orderly society. It is the law Courts, presided over by independent Judges dispensing justice without fear or favour, which ensure independence of a country and with the freedom enjoyed by the Judges in the performance of their duties and functions, the independence of the country cannot be measured and judged.
14. We being conscious of the duty which the Judges are called upon to discharge. Every effort was made, in these proceedings spreading over five hours, to make the respondent realise the gravity of the situation. The respondent appeared to be either incorrigible or was motivated to damage irreparably the oldest seat of justice in Pakistan. He with the intention of prolonging this unfortunate situation sought adjournment. This design was not allowed to succeed. In the cases of direct contempt, proceedings are not to take the form of trial. The learned Judges of the Supreme Court in the case of Aslam Baig have held that in case of a direct contempt it is not necessary that there be a written charge, framing of issues or to hold regular trial or examination and that no other proof is necessary when it is a case of direct contempt. In this every case, it was also observed that 'making of irrelevant and scandalous attack in proceedings filed in Court is a direct contempt and can be dealt with immediately brevimanu which means summarily.
15. In the instant case, three show-cause notices were, therefore, served orally as the contempt was in view of the Court. This is so provided in subsection (4) of section 7 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976. The procedure adopted by the Court was thus in accord with law and not invalid as asserted.
16. The question whether the covenants contained in the petition, the remarks and the statements made during the proceedings by the respondent amount to contempt of Court need not detain us as it was admittedly that the same amounted to contempt of Court. The respondent is thus guilty of having committed the grossest contempt of Court and we hold accordingly.
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)--- ----S.O. 15---Discharge from service---Employee was discharged from service on ground of misconduct without holding domestic enquiry about alleged misconduct---Order discharging employee from service was passed without observing rules of enquiry mentioned in S.O. 15(4) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance and was thus, rightly set aside by Labour Court re-instating employee with back benefits. [p. 170] A Kunwar Mukhtar Ahmed for Appellants.
S.P. Lodhi for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 28th November, 1995.
DECISION ' This appeal arises from order of the 1st Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent worker was allowed and his re-instatement in service was ordered with back benefits.
2. The respondent was , an employee of the appellant Printing Corporation of Pakistan Press. It was alleged against him that he had beaten Syed Musarrat Alam, Deputy Manager, Production outside, the Printing Press. He was suspended and then discharged from service.
3. It was contended on behalf of the respondent worker that no domestic enquiry was held for misconduct under Standing Order 15(4) of the Standing Orders Ordinance but he has been discharged under the Service Rules meant for the employees of Printing Corporation of Pakistan Limited at Islamabad. These Service Rules have been issued under the directions of the Chairman of the N.I.R.C. In connection with the agreement between Printing Corporation and the four unions.
Under section 1(4)(a) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, Standing Orders are applicable to Industrial or Commercial Establishments wherein 20 or more workers are employed and under the proviso, these Standing Orders will not apply where the Industrial or Commercial Establishment is carried on by or under the authority of the Federal or Provincial Government where Statutory Rules of Service, conduct or discipline are applicable to the workmen employed therein.
4. It has been argued that the Rules published under the directions of the Chairman, N.I.R.C. With the Agreement of the Unions are Statutory Rules, but Statutory Rules are only those rules which are passed by the legislature. These are private Rules of the Printing Corporation framed by Agreement of the N.I.R.C. And the four Unions. These will have no application where the workmen are governed by the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance. The Standing Orders provide the definition of misconduct and the procedure to be adopted in case of domestic enquiry under Order 15(4) and these Standing Orders will supersede any other private Rules.
5. It has been admitted that a regular enquiry was not held in this case but the worker was discharged without observing the Rules of Enquiry under the Standing Orders Ordinance. It has, therefore, been rightly held by the Labour Court that the discharge of the respondent is not in accordance with Rule and the respondent has been re-instated with back benefits. I can, therefore, see no reason to interfere. The decision of the lower Court is maintained and the appeal is dismissed.