' The present respondent had filed a Complaint No, (4(16)/77) under section 16(1) (d) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. This complaint was pending before Mr. Masud Afzal Khan, Member IV of this Commission.
2. The respondent Ali Ahmed filed an application for transfer of the case to Some other Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission on 9-6-1977 on the allegation that when the charge was framed against the accused, the learned Member himself directly dictated the answers to the questions while the accused remained quiet and did not themselves say anything in reply to the charge. The answers, according to the complainant, who is now respondent before me, were dictated with an intention to damage his case as they contained counter-allegations. The other allegation was that on one of the dates of hearing the complainant did not receive proper treatment at the hands of the learned Member in the presence of the accused who were given more favourable treatment. These allegations made in the application for transfer were supported by an affidavit sworn by the respondent.
3. When the case came upon for preliminary hearing on 9-7-1977, 1 called for the comments of the learned Member and also observed that the allegation of lack of proper treatment contained in para. 10 was vague and might be supplemented by fuller details if the petitioner was so advised.
4. The learned Member denied these allegations and said that literal translation of what the accused said in open Court was dictated by him in the presence of both the counsel. It also appeared to me from the comments made by the learned Member that the intention of the complainant was to get an alternative date and to avoid proceedings on 10-7-1977.
5. I also summoned the accused in the case and each one of them stated that what had been recorded in their replies to the charge-sheet was their own version and had been given by them in their own words. Dismissed the application for transfer and issued notice to the present respondent to show cause why he should not be prosecuted for filing a false affidavit. He, in response to this notice, appeared with his counsel Kh. Mohammad Farooque, Advocate on 3-8-1977. The respondent through his counsel filed a written apology saying that he did not have any intention of maligning any persons or officers of the Court and that he should be provided a locus poenitentiae and that the inadvertent act done by him was without any intention of making a false statement and that he should be forgiven. In the same application the learned counsel for the respondent had raised the question that this Commission was not a civil, revenue or criminal Court and that notice under section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code could not, therefore, be given to the respondent by the Chairman.
6. In addressing arguments today, the learned counsel apart from raising this objection has also submitted that the affidavit which form the basis of the notice was not properly verified and since it could not be distinguished from the form of verification as to what allegations were true to the knowledge of the respondent and what were the allegations that he believed to be true on information, no criminal action could be taken on this affidavit.
7. In dealing with the first objection, the learned counsel submits that the National Industrial Relations Commission had a wide range of functions and that it being not exclusively a criminal or civil Court, the provisions of section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code were not attracted. The learned counsel was asked to cite any authority in support of his submission. But he was not able to do so. He said that he reads section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, coupled with the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 he, is of the opinion that the Commission is neither a criminal nor a civil Court. I do not think that this objection of the learned counsel has any substance. The Commission has multifarious duties to perform and among them, it deals with the cases of unfair labour practice. It is also a Labour Court which A has all the trappings of a civil Court. The short answer to the learned counsel's objection is served by clause (f) subsection (8) of section 22-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 which says that one of the functions of the Commission shall to be try certain offences including those referred to in section 53 thereof. That would clearly show that apart from its other functions, the Commission is a Court of criminal jurisdiction. The affidavit was filed in connection with proceedings in a criminal matter pending before a Member of the Commission and in my view the notice was issued to the respondent with proper justification.
8. As to the other argument which relates to the form of verification of affidavit, the learned counsel cited before me two judgments, namely Hail Shiekh Manzoor Ellahl v. Shlekh Abu Bakr and Alhaj All Mahammad Akanda v. The State. In both these cases the affidavits filed in transfer application came in for examination and it was observed that since the form of verification was vague and it bad not been specified as to which parts of the affidavits were true to the knowledge of the deponent and which he believed to be true on information, no action could be founded on such affidavits. In the Dacca case, reference was made to section 539-A of the Criminal Procedure Code which prescribes the form in which an affidavit is to be verified while in Lahore case attention was drawn to Order XIX, rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Code and rules 9 and 10 of Lahore High Court Rules and Orders, Chapter 12(b), Vol. IV. In the High Court Rules it has been enjoined that if the declarant is stating any fact which is within his own knowledge he should use the words "I affirm" or "I make oath and say".
9. In the Dacca case the main question which came up for consideration was whether in view of the vague form of affidavit and in view of the not very categorical replies of the Magistrate concerned, a preliminary enquiry was or was not necessary.1 2
10. To say that wherever deponent falls to specify as to which fact was true to his knowledge, he could escape punishment by his own omission, whether it is wilful or not, is to make the law subject to the evasion of a person who himself is the author of the wrong. The judgments cited before me apply in a case where in view of the vague verification it could not be said on the basis of the record as to which of the allegations were stated to be true to the knowledge of the deponent. I find some support for this opinion from the Dacca case where it is said that "in any case it cannot be a sound or tenable basis for prosecution for the simple reason that nothing can be definitely pinneddown to the deponent's knowledge and he will thus have wide scope to make a successful escape through the convenient loopholes, of information and belief". The real question therefore in each case, in spite of vague or indefinite verification, is as to whether it appears from the record that there was some basis for saying that averments made in the affidavit were true on the basis of the knowledge of the deponent.
11. In this case the respondent was himself a complainant and had been appearing on various dates of hearing. On 1-6-1977 when charges were framed against the accused, their replies were taken down he was present with his learned counsel, Khawaja Mohammad Farooq, Advocate.
Therefore, the allegation in the affidavit that the learned Member Commission had dictated replies to the charge-sheet of his own and that the accused had said nothing could clearly be said to be based on his personal knowledge. I may also refer to the form of his affidavit where in the beginning he says;
12. "I hereby solemnly affirm and declare". This form of affirmation further indicates that whatever he stated was from his personal knowledge.
13. Now coming to the apology filed by the respondent he has said that he should be afforded locus poenitentiae. He stated before me today that he was misled and is repentent and would like to before given. He is a Graduate and holds a responsible post being the Zonal Manager of Messrs M.
M. Isphahani Ltd. He may not be well versed in law but as a man or education and of some position ho should not have subscribed to the affidavit that he has sworn. However, in view of the expression of regrets and repentence, let him off with a reprimand and do not intend to proceed in this case under section 476, Cr. P. C. The administration of the reprimand, in my view, will meet the ends of justice. The proceedings are dropped and the case be consigned to the record room. 1971 P Cr. L J 1021 PLD 1963 Dacca 166