' The under consideration complaint under section 56 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 has been filed by Mr. Hameed Anwar Mirza, Managing Director, Pharmedia Corporation, Lahore hereinafter referred to as the complainant against Mst. Nasiran Bibi, wife of Maulvi Muhammad Ishaque of Lahore. The allegations against the accused are that Maulvi Muhammad Ishaque the husband of the accused was employed by the complainant as workman in his establishment. His services were terminated due to financial stringencies. The said Muhammad Ishaque challenged his termination before the Junior Labour Court and also instigated the accused and his an other wife to file petitions under section 25-A of the I. R. O. Against the complainant. The petition filed by the accused for re-instatement was false inasmuch as, she was never employed by the complainant. Subsequently this Court while disposing of the appeal filed by the complainant dismissed the false application filed by the accused. In these circumstances, according to the complainant the accused made a false statement in the application filed under section 25-A of the 1. R. O. To the effect that she had been an employee of the complainant and was terminated by him.
2. After recording preliminary evidence produced by the complainant, the accused was summoned to stand trial for the offence punishable under section 56 of the I. R. 0, and warrant case trial procedure has been observed in this case.
3. The complainant in his prosecution evidence has examined Muhammad Latif and Fazal Din, P. W.
1, and P. W. 2, respectively whereas he himself also testified as P. W.
3. Mohammad Latif has deposed that he served in Pharmedia Corporation from June, 1973 to January, 1975. He was issued the appointment letter and during his tenure of service the accused was never employed In the establishment of complainant. This witness admitted that he was related to the complainant. He has not been able to produce his own letter of appointment. He has also admitted that the accused happened to be a Parda Nasheen Lady and this witness could not identify her. Fazal Din deposed that he remained employed as peon In the complainant's establishment for 3 years since 1973 and he knew all the employees of the said establishment.
According to him wife of Maulvi Muhammad Ishaque never remained in the service of the complainant. He further disclosed that 3 girls were in the employment of the Pharmedia Corporation. This witness has also not been able to produce his letter of appointment although be claimed that he was issued the letter of appointment and Identity card. He has also not produced the Identity Card. Hamid Anwar complainant himself has stated that Mst. Naziran bad never been in his service. Her husband Mr. Muhammad Ishaque remained in the employment of the complainant. His services were terminated and he got filed false complaint by the accused. The complainant however clearly admitted that Mst. Naziran Bibi accused never appeared before the Junior Labour Court and she also did not make any statement before the said Court. He also admitted that the application filed by Mst. Naziran Bibi was accepted by the Junior Labour Court to the extent that the complainant was directed to pay her wages for one month in lieu of the notice, but subsequently the complainant filed an appeal and the decision of the lower Court was set aside. The complainant in his cross-examination has admitted that there was litigation pending against him and his womenfolk in the criminal Court at Lahore which was instituted by Muhammad Ishaque the husband of the accused.
4. I have carefully considered and analysed the aforementioned evidence produced by the complainant in this case. The two prosecution witnesses examined by the complainant besides himself are interested witnesses in the sense that one of them is admittedly related to the complainant and the other has been his employee. The complainant himself has stated that the accused herself never appeared before the lower Court and did not make any statement to the effect that she has been in the employment of the complainant. No evidence has been produced by the complainant to prove that the petition allegedly filed by the accused under section 25-A of the I. R.
0. Before the Junior Labour Court was in fact filed by her and not by her husband on her behalf. We cannot also lose sight of the fact that the learned Junior Labour Court accepted the application of the accused and it was only in appeal that it was held that the accused could not prove that she has been in the employment of the complainant.
5. In the light of what has been said above, we find that the prosecution evidence produced by the complainant does not inspire confidence and does not justify the framing of charge for an offence punishable under A section 56 of the I. R.
0. Against the accused. We would accordingly discharger the accused under section 253, Cr. P. C.