1. ' The appellant is aggrieved of the order dated 12-4-1994 by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Mardan whereby the petition of the petitioner-appellant under section 34 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 in respect of the cancellation of the proceedings relating to registration of respondent No. 3 was dismissed.
2. ' The relevant facts are that respondent No.3 applied for registration to respondent No. 1 which was marked by the latter to respondent No. 2 for enquiry and report. Respondent No. 2 made enquiry in the matter and found the application legal and competent. However, before any order could be passed on this application the petitioner-appellant moved the Labor Court for annulling the proceedings conducted in the matter. The learned Labor Court held that the proceedings conducted by respondent in enquiry suffer from no defect and, therefore, respondent No. 1 could not be prevented from implementing the enquiry report.
3. ' I heard both the sides and went through the relevant record.
4. The petition under section 34 of the I.R.O. Was rather immature as at the time it was filed respondent No. 1 had not granted the requisite certificate of registration. In the application under section 34 only the acts done and the proceedings conducted were challenged. The petitioner- appellant should have waited for the final decision of respondent No. 1 on the report of the Enquiry Officer as it was open to him either to accept the report or to discard it. The proceedings in the Labour Court were, thus, premature. In any case the enquiry conducted by respondent No. 2 is elaborate and exhaustive and no defect could be shown by the appellant which may justify interference in appeal. This appeal is without merit and is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. Civil Miscellaneous also stands disposed of accordingly.
5. Appeal dismissed.
6. 1998 PLC 163 [Karachi High Court] Before Muhammad Roshan Essani, J NASEEM SAIGOL and another versus ALTAF HUSSAIN, LABOUR OFFICER AND INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES, CENTRAL DIVISION, SINDH, KARACHI and another Constitutional Petitions Nos. S-6 and S-7 of 1997, decided on 1st November, 1997.
7. West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)--- ----Ss. 2, 7, 10 & S.Os. 2, 4, 8 & 10---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 243---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Complaint against employers (accused) for not issuing appointment letters to workers; failure to provide permanent workers with cards and non-issuing temporary cards to temporary workers---Conviction of employers on basis of such complaint---Validity--- Conviction of employers was based on their admission but the same was not recorded as nearly as possible in words used by the employers and they were also not given opportunity to show why they should not he convicted, as contemplated under S. 243, Criminal Procedure Code, 1898--- Held, Trial Court was not only obliged to record admission of accused persons as nearly as possible in the words of accused/employers but was duty bound to ask them as to why they should not be convicted despite their admission of guilt---Mere recording of statement in words "pleads guilty" was not sufficient---Conviction of employers (accused) was set aside and case was remanded to Trial Court for proceeding in accordance with law. [p. 166] A & B Rana Muhammad Aslam for Petitioners. Haleem Siddiqui for Respondents. Date of hearing: 30th October, 1997.
8. ' Through this single order I propose to dispose of two Constitution petitions bearing Nos. S-6 and S-7 of 1997 filed by the petitioners against the conviction passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No.5, Karachi.
9. ' The facts giving rise to the present petitions are that Assistant Director and Inspector of Secretaries Central Division, Karachi filed complaints under West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 against accused/petitioners Naseem Saigol the employer and Mansoorul Haq the Manager M/s. PEL Services Centre, Karachi alleging therein that on 21-5-1996 on inspection complainant found that appointment letters were not issued to the workers, permanent workers were not provided permanent cards, temporary workers were not provided temporary cards, notice showing the pay was not displayed, holidays notice was not displayed, notice showing unclaimed wages pay day was not displayed, leave refused register was not maintained, leave passes were not issued to the workers and notice showing rate of wages payable to all classes of workers for all classes of work was not displayed, therefore, complaint under section 2(g) read with Order 2(A), section 2(g) read with Order 2(2), section 2(g) read with Order 2(4), section 2(g) read with Order 4, section 2(g) read with Order 10, section 2(g) read with Order 8, section 2(g) read with Order 10, section 2(g) read with Order 8(2) and section 2(g) read with Order 5 of the Standing Order Ordinance, 1968 punishable under section 7(2) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. Trial Court framed the charge accordingly and on the "plea of guilty" convicted the petitioners to pay a fine of Rupees 75 per day from 21-5-1996 till date in 9 cases jointly and severally amounting to rupees 3,40,200 in impugned judgment in petition No. 6 of 1997 and they have to pay a fine of Rs,100 each in impugned judgment in petition No. 7 of 1997.
10. ' Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment they have preferred the present petitions.
11. ' The petitioners/accused both common in the two petitions, have contended that they are Chairman and Regional Manager respectively of a joint Stock/Limited Company, registered under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 and are carrying on its manufacturing process at Lahore and Gadoon Amazai and the manufactured goods are sold and delivered by them all over the Pakistan and they have office for sales at Karachi. The petitioners have opened their office "after sales service centre" being separate entity which has been registered as commercial establishment vide Registration No. V-10 under the provisions of West Pakistan Shops and Shipment Ordinance, 1969 since 24-9-1994 and they have also opened another separate establishment in the name and style of PEL Sales Office at 22-A, Anum Pride, Block 7/8, K.E.S.C., Karachi for the sales of spare parts. This office is quite separate from the worship of "after sales service centre" and it has also been registered separately as commercial establishment vide registration No. V-41 under the provisions of West Pakistan Shops and Establishment Ordinance, 1969 since 24-9-1996. It is alleged that one inspector, namely, Faiz Muhammad visited PEL/Sales Office and the PEL "after sales service centre" on 2-10-1996 carried out the inspection of the petitioners' company. In his report he categorically stated that during inspection no violation of law was detected. Respondent Altaf Hussain, Labour Officer and Inspector of Factories, Central Division, Sindh Secretariat, Karachi, visited the office and workshop of the petitioners on 21.5-1996 and found the petitioners committing the alleged offences.
12. Respondent No. 1 on the basis of his alleged findings filed the complaint Nos. 99 to 107 of 1996 and complaint No. 98/1996 in the Court of Presiding Officer, 5th Sindh Labour Court, Karachi. As stated above the learned Judge framed the charge against the accused petitioners on the basis of alleged "admission of guilt" by the petitioners/accused. It is the further case of the petitioners that at the relevant time they were at Lahore when the process of the complaint was served upon the accused/petitioners through their Establishment at Karachi. Accused petitioners requested one Muhammad Iqbal Shah. Advocate, on the evening of 5-1-1997 from Lahore to look after the case of the petitioners. Subsequently petitioners came to know when their counsel informed them about their presence in Court on 7-1-1997 for "pleading guilty" whereas both the petitioners were at Lahore on the said date. It is further alleged that some unauthorized persons appeared in the Court on 7- 1-1997 and represented themselves to be the petitioners and pleaded guilty as being petitioners.
13. On the basis of pleading guilty the learned Judge convicted them.
14. I have heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Rana Muhammad Aslam and Mr. Haleem Siddiqui appearing on behalf of the respondents, latter does not support the prosecution case. On perusal of the record, I find that the admission allegedly made by the petitioners was not recorded as nearly as possible in the words used by them and also they were not given opportunity to show why they should not be convicted as contemplated under section 243, Cr.P.C. Which is reproduced hereunder: "Conviction on admission of truth of accusation. If the accused admits that he has committed the offence with which he is charged his admission shall be recorded as nearly as possible in the words used by him; and, if he shows no sufficient cause why he should not be convicted, the Magistrate may convict him accordingly."
15. It is thus crystal clear that not only the trial Court was obliged to record the admission as nearly as possible in the words of the accused/petitioners but was duty bound to ask the petitioners as to why they should not be convicted despite their admission of guilt. Merely recording the statement in the words "pleads guilty" is not sufficient.
16. ' In view of my above conclusion, I allow both the petitions and set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioners/accused dated 7-1-1997. The cases are remanded to trial Court for proceeding against the petitioners in accordance with law.