' This revision application arises out of a decision passed by the learned fifth Sindh Labour Court Karachi in Complaint No,1 of 1998 under section 62 of the I.R.O., 1969.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that a complaint was received in 1997 by the Management of the Respondent Company M/s. Telephone Industries of Pakistan (pvt.) Limited from a patient signed by one Nazeer Technician. A copy of the said complaint was also endorsed to the Union. On enquiry by me Mr. Afzal Bhatti Representative of the Union stated that no action was taken on the said complaint by the Union. Later, on, the management appears to have received a bill of Rs,38,466 (Rupees Thirty Eight Thousand Four hundred Sixty Six only) from Taj Medical Complex where said Complainant was alleged to have been treated in the said Hospital, whereupon the management issued a charge-sheet, dated 22-12-1997 to Nayyar Iqbal, stated to be the Propaganda Secretary of the Union, which for the sake of convenience is reproduced as under:-- "It has been brought to the notice of Management that you have compelled Taj Medical Complex Hospital to admit a patient without prior approval/medical reference letter from the competent Authority. The said hospital after providing treatment has submitted medical bill for Rs,38,466 to TIP for payment on account of treatment provided to the said patient. Neither you were authorised nor any medical slip was issued by the competent Authority for getting the treatment from Taj Medical Complex and as such you have caused financial loss to the establishment. Your above act constitute serious misconduct under Standing Order 15(3)(c).
' Your are, therefore, called upon to explain in writing within three days of receipt of this charge- sheet as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against you. In case no satisfactory reply is received from you within the time mentioned above. It will be presumed that you have nothing to say in your defence and the matter will be decided ex parte.
(Sd.)
' MANAGER, ' PLANNIGN AND INSTALLATION, TIP ' K.T.R., KARACHII."
3. A reply, dated 25-10-1997 to the said show-cause notice was addressed to the management wherein, inter alia, the main question was not replied and certain frivolous nature of objection were taken. Management on 15th January, 1998 issued Enquiry Notice to him, appointing Mr. Riaz Ahmed Shaikh Assistant Manager, Shipping Officer, Karachi as Enquiry Officer. Mr. Nayyar Iqbal does not appear to have associated with the said Enquiry, Instead, one Muhammad Yaseen stated to be the General Secretary of the Union filed a Criminal Complaint bearing No,1 of 1998 in the Sindh Labour Court No,V. Karachi under section 62 of I.R.O. 1969, against 5 respondents named therein holding posts of Manager. Chief Engineering, Deputy Manager, Assistant Manager (the four Executives) of TIP of Karachi Region and one Sardar Muhammad Arif Khan General Manager of Telephone Industries of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. Haripur Hazara,.,citing all of them to be accused.
4. Mr. Umer Qureshi learned counsel for the respondent submitted that on receipt of the above Notice of Enquiry, Nayyar Iqbal filed an application, dated 17-2-1998 under section 22-A (8)(g), of I.R.O. 1969 before National Industrial Relations Commission. The said application was registered as Case No, 4(25) of 1998-K/24(23) of 1998-K and obtained an order (without notice to respondents) on the same day from a learned Member of N.I.R.C. (through Mr. M.A. Bhatti who also appears as applicant's representative in the above Revision before me) staying the enquiry. The said case is lingering on in the N.I.R.C. For one reason or the other, as also admitted before me by the Applicant's Representative.
5. It appears that the four Executive (out of five) were exempted from personal appearance under section 205, Cr.P.C., on giving undertaking by the counsel to appears on their behalf whereas Chief Engineer was granted bail on furnishing surety.
6, On 17-3-1998 statement of the Complainant/Applicant was recorded by the learned Labour Court No,V and then the Complainant was ordered to produce witnesses in support of the complaint. On 28-3-1998 two witnesses were produced by the Complaint who were examined.
Summons for personal appearance of the accused were issued. The case after service was put off to several dates. The matter was adjourned for one reason or the other, when on 23-5-1998 an application was filed by the respondents under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. The learned Labour Court after hearing the parties allowed the said application by its order, dated 6-7-1998 against which the above Revision has now been filed.
7. Mr. Afzal Bhatti Representative of the applicant submits that the management removed Mr. Nayyar Iqbal from medical duties and Taj Medical Complex was informed accordingly by letter, dated 1-1-1998 (and that he has been assigned another duty). The said Hospital was, therefore, warned that he (Nayar Iqbal) will have no concern with Hospital matters and TIP will not take responsibility in his case. On my query Mr. M.A. Bhatti informed this Tribunal that the Union did not nominate any one else on the Managing Committee of the management as yet.
8. I have read the impugned order and heard the parties. It appear that the impugned order is clear and explicit giving reasons in detail for passing the said order. It was stated inter alia that a charge-sheet was issued to Nayyar Iqbal for causing financial loss to the management and an independent Enquiry Officer from another Department was appointed. Nayyar Iqbal instead of associating with the enquiry chose to file a case before 'the N.I.R.C. Which fact was concealed from the Court as held by the learned Labour Court. It was further observed by the leaped Labour Court that the alleged removal of the Representative from a particular place (position) to another cannot be a violation or breach of law and that it does not fall within the ambit of section 62 of I.R.O. The learned Labour Court therefore, came to the conclusion that there is no prima facie case has been made out against the accused persons and the complainant/applicant without cogent reason has falsely implicated the accused persons in this complaint and the complainant have pot come with clean hands in this Court. The learned Labour Court expressing his opinion observed that the complainant has filed this case only to save Mr. Nayyar Iqbal against whom the enquiry could, not be proceeded with in obedience to the order of the N.I.R.C. Which case is hanging fire for the last one year Finding myself in agreement with the observation of the learned Labour Court, in my view the complaint has been filed with mala fide notices and intentions. All the officers not only of Karachi Region but also the General Manager of the Telephone industries of Pakistan Haripur Hazara have also been impleaded as party.
' I, therefore, refuse to exercise my suo motu revisonal jurisdiction under section 38(3-a) of the I.R.O., 1969. Consequently the Revision Application is dismissed.