' The three complainants named above have filed this joint complaint against the respondents under section 22-C of I.R.O., 1969 with the allegations that in spite of service of stay order of this Court, the respondent in violation and disobedience of stay order have terminated the services of three complainants and therefore, they have committed contempt of Court and the complainants have prayed that the respondents may be punished accordingly.
2. Notice of this contempt application was given to the respondents to file comments who have filed comments and they have denied that they have violated the stay order of this Court. They have stated that the termination orders were posted in the morning of 16-4-2002 and the same was dispatched in the morning whereas the stay order from this Court was received at 2-30 p.m.
And from the complainants it was received through TCS at 11-30 a.m. They have stated that they cannot even conceive of committing contempt of Court as they are law abiding citizens and they have regard for the Court of law.
3. I have heard the learned Advocates for the parties. I have gone through the complaint, comments filed by the respondents and documents attached.
4. Learned Advocate for the complainants argued that in fact the orders of termination were passed by respondents after receipt of stay order and they had dispatched the orders of termination, after receipt of stay order, through Night Post Office which means that the termination orders were dispatched after 3-00 p.m. Whereas admittedly the stay order was received by the respondents at 11-30 a.m. And 2-00 p.m. From the complainant and Court respectively.
5. In order to resolve the controversy as to, at what time the termination orders were posted, the learned Advocate for the complainants made application to summon an Officer of Franchised Post Office to clarify the position. The application of the complainants was granted and summons were issued to the Officer of Franchised Post Office, but he was examined as Court witness. Mr. Gohar lqbal and Mr. Mahboob Rizvi Advocates cross-examined this witness. This witness namely Muhammad Maqsood who was Manager of the Franchised Post Office from where the termination orders were dispatched stated in his evidence that their Post Office is a Franchised Post Office and it works from 8-00 a.m. To 8-00 p.m. He stated that since all the Franchised Post Offices work, from 8-00 a.m. To 8-00 p.m., hence they are called Night Post Offices. He stated that they affix the stamp on envelope as "Night Post Office" even the envelope is registered during day time. He stated that the three envelopes addressed to Syed Yasin Ali, Ghulam Rasool and Syed Naveed Jamil were posted at about 9-30 a.m. He stated that the envelopes bear the printed seal on which it is mentioned (KAR PUBLIC SERVICE CENTRAL P.O. (NIGHT). He stated that they use these as stamp in every post office in the morning shift as well as in the night shift. This witness made it clear that the termination orders addressed to the complainants were registered with their Post Office at 9-30 a.m. Mr. Gohar Iqbal, advocate argued that this witness has admitted in cross-examination that rules and regulations of Govt. Post Offices are applicable to them and since Govt. Post Offices work as Night Post Office after 3-00 p.m., hence Franchised Post Offices are deemed to be working in the Night Post Office after 3-00 p.m. And envelopes addressed to the complainants which bear stamp of Night Post Office will be deemed to have been posted in night shift after 3-00 p.m. This argument does not seem to be correct and sound. An Officer of Franchised Post Office stated that since their post office is Franchised, hence it is called Night Post Office because it works from 8-00 a.m. To 8- 00 p.m. There is no reason for this Court to disbelieve his version. He is a responsible officer and he has no reason to give false evidence. He must be knowing that in case he gives false statement, the department could also take action against him. The envelopes produced show printed stamps bearing words "Night". According to this witness, this stamp is applied on all envelopes even though they are posted during day time.
6. The learned Advocate for the complainant argued that this witness has admitted that the rules and regulations of Govt. Post Offices are applicable to their post offices and therefore, they have to follow the rules of Govt. Post Office who use word "Night" Post Office after 3-00 p.m. This argument too has no force. If the Franchised Post Offices work up to night if they use night stamp on each envelope, they cannot be violating any rule of the Govt. Post Offices.
7. Even otherwise the version of the respondents appears to be true and honest. Had the intention of the respondents been to circumvent the stay order of this Court, they could have easily put any date on the termination letters prior to 16-4-2002 and then they could have pleaded that the orders were posted on 16-4-2002. But since they had already posted the letters, there was no need for them to manipulate the date.
8. The respondents have stated that the termination letters were posted in the morning, because the complainants were not present in the office. This was not denied by the complainants, which means that they admitted that they were absent from their duties on 16-4-2002. This compelled the respondents to send the termination orders through post.
9. Moreover, I have decided the main petition of the complainants under section 22-A(8)(g) of the I.R.O. And I have dismissed it holding inter alia that the termination orders were posted in the morning of 16-4-2002 and the effective date is the date on which the termination orders are signed and not the date of dispatched or receipt of the same by the addressee. This is the off shoot of that main case.
10. In view of above discussed facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to believe the version of the complainants that the termination orders were issued after receipt of stay order.
11. There is a legal flaw in this complaint. In criminal case it is only the one complainant who file complaint. There is no concept of filing a joint complaint as it warranted in law.
' In view of what has been discussed above, I do not find any merits in this and it is dismissed accordingly.
Complaint dismissed.