' The petitioner, a registered trade union, is aggrieved by the order dated 1-10-1998 passed by Mr. Qamar Ahmed Shaikh, the Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No,3 (respondent No,1)
' The respondent No,2 is a private limited company. According to the petitioners their members were employees of the respondent No,2.
The petitioners had earlier filed C.P. No,S.3 of 1995 in this Court against the order dated 24-11-1994 which was set aside and the matter was remanded to the respondent No,1 for decision afresh in the light of the observations made in the judgment dated 15-4-1995.
' Now the grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent No,1 ignored the directions/observations of this Court and decided the case in a way not permissible under the law.
' I heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
' Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly urged that the remand order had been passed on merits, but the respondent No,1 instead of following the directions of this Court in the remand order tried to find fault with them, and thus, his approach was unwarranted and amounts to contempt of this Court.
' Vide order dated 3-6-1999, office was directed to issue contempt notice to the respondent No, 1 . In his reply the alleged contemner (Mr. Qamar Ahmed Shaikh), denied having committed any contempt or violation of the orders passed by this Court, although he also stated as follows; "3. That I respectfully submit that the facts given in paras. 31, 32, 33, and 34 of the Judgment dated 15-5-1998 are based upon only the fact that the factory was closed 3 years ago and that is admitted position as a result of the permission granted by the order of the Court, and therefore, at this stage that point was also to be considered. Moreover, at the time of decision of this case when the matter was remanded back to this Court for re-consideration, that fact perhaps, was not brought before the Hon'ble Court as per directions contained in the order at page 9, line 8 by which it has been observed that: ' The Labour Court has, therefore, to be satisfied that such a move on the part of the employer is genuine and not mala fide with the object of getting rid of the workmen. In the event of contest to an application under section 11-A by the workmen of their Union, the Court is obliged to examine all relevant facts to ascertain that there are real circumstances justifying the closure or termination of employment. The Court has also to see that the workmen also get what they are entitled to under the shape of their wages and benefits.' ' and, therefore, I respectfully submit that it was not due to any mala fide but a bona fide one and in that regard I would respectfully submit that such point No,5 was also taken out and decided alongwith other points at the time of judgment."
So far as the impugned judgment is concerned, I am satisfied that the Presiding Officer labour Court-3 did not apply his mind, to the observations/directions of this Court after remand and passed the impugned order. Therefore, in the interest of justice the impugned Order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Labour Court No-V for disposal afresh according to law.
' So far as the show-cause notice and the reply are concerned, it would be relevant to reproduce paras. 31 to 34 from the order passed after remand of the case by Mr. Qamar Ahmed Shaikh, Presiding Officer, Labour Court No,3, paras. 31, 32, 33 and 34 read as under:-- "31. It is evident that in view of the said established facts as mentioned in paras. 22 to 29 above there is no scope or question at all at this stage of this Court either granting or refusing any permission to the applicant, either for closing down any establishment or for terminating the services of any workmen of the applicant, as neither any establishment nor any workmen of the applicant exist at this stage. In fact such permission having already been granted almost four (4) years ago and having been fully acted upon, it has become a completely past and closed matter not capable in any manner of being re-opened at this stage in view of the irreversible nature of the realities of the situation.
32. It appears that the said facts and documents mentioned in para.4 of the Order, were not brought to the notice of the Hob'ble single Judge of High Court because, otherwise, this case would not have been remanded and the Union's Constitutional Petition would have been declared to be infructuous.
33. Had the said facts and documents been brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Single Judge of the High Court, there would also have been no occasion to cite in the Judgment, the two rulings of the Indian Supreme Court which lay down that closure should be real and genuine and not merely a pretence. There can be no doubt, in view of the said facts and documents mentioned in para. 4 herein before, that the closure in the applicants case was real genuine and complete in every respect as envisaged in the said two Indian rulings.
34. In view of the foregoing, I find no option but to dispose of the above application accordingly."
' A bare perusal of the above hardly leaves any doubt in my mind that the alleged contemnor made the observations which are uncalled for. He was supposed to follow the remand order in letter and spirit which he failed to C do. However, instead of framing the charge under the law of contempt, it would be proper to recommend action against the Presiding Officer on administrative side, the reason being that Mr. Qamar Ahmed Shaikh was dismissed on 19-9-1992 after due inquiry on corruption charges when he was on the strength of this Court as Additional District and Sessions Judge, but thereafter he managed to obtain the dismissal order set aside from the then Chief Minister, Sindh (Mr. Liaquat Jatoi) but so far he is not recognised as a judicial officer by this Court and was not allowed to resume duty. Therefore, the Government of Sindh posted him as the Presiding Officer Labour Court-3. There is absolutely no doubt that he is still reputed to be corrupt and it is very unfortunate that such a person has been assigned the vital task of deciding the matters under the Labour Laws. In the Judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court, authored by me in Service Appeal No,11 of 1997, Muhammad Sagheer Rana v. High Court of Sindh (unreported) was held as follows::-- "9. On the point regarding lack of specific allegations touching upon controversial integrity we feel that in matters of corruption no direct evidence would normally be available. In Muhammad Suleman Junejo v. Chief Secretary, Sindh, 1980 PLC (C. S) 694 it was held that in cases of corruption and malpractice by a civil servant, it is the reputation that travels far and wide; direct evidence is hardly possible as the litigant who pays illegal gratification and gets his work done is not expected to come forward and give evidence and in this regard the adverse general reputation is enough to take action.
10. We are passing through hard times where the society and .Values have fundamentally deteriorated and there are rampant allegations of corruption against the members of the subordinate judiciary. It is an unfortunate situation where the protectors of the rights of the citizens of this country are found unscrupulously invoked in acts of corruption and malpractices. In the light of the prevalent circumstances it is more desirable for the Chief Justice of the Province who is the highest judicial functionary of the Province, to enjoy more liberal powers to check the subordinate members of the judiciary, stringently and effectively...
13. As already explained in para. 11 above, when taking action against member of the subordinate judiciary, regard must be had to his overall general reputation, reputation of being corrupt, merit of the judgments and orders passed by him, and complaints generated against him by lawyers and litigants. Regard must also be had to the periodic reports of all the Sessions Judges under whom the particular Judge may have worked. In this respect, weight must also be given to the comments given by the Judges of the superior Courts (when hearing appeals/revisions) upon the judgments/orders of the Judges of the subordinate Courts under appeal/revision..."
' It is, therefore, ordered that office should send a copy of this judgment to the learned Chairman Labour Appellate Tribunal for information as well as to the Chief Secretary and the Secretary Law, Department, Government of Sindh to consider whether Mr. Qamar Ahmed Shaikh who is still reputed to be corrupt deserves to be retained in service.