2023 PLC 244 NATIONAL-INDUSTRIAL-RELATIONS-COMMISSION

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

POST MASTER GENERAL CENTRAL PUNJAB VS MUHAMMAD JAMEEL SHAHID Contempt is to disobey or disregard an order, direction or process of Court Commission/Tribunal which a person is legally bound to obey ; a willful breach of an undertaking given to a judicial forum having the authority to proceed against the contemnor ; any act intended to or which tends to bring the authority of Court or the administration of law into disrespect or disrepute and to obstruct, interfere, or prejudice the process of law or the due course of any judicial proceedings, fall within the category of contempt of Court ---In contempt of Court / Commission there must be involved some "act done or writing published calculated to bring a Court or judge of a Court into contempt or to lower his authority " of something " calculated to obstruct or interfere with the due course of justice or lawful process of the Court---Purpose of contempt proceedings is not to wreak vengeance but to vindicate honour of the competent judicial/quasi-judicial forum, so as to keep the public confidence in the judicial forums undiminished---Disobedience of prohibition order or violation of stay order is a crime---Mere knowledge of existence of such order is enough to constitute contempt proceedings irrespective of service of order no excuse can be acceptable in this regard and persons not parties to the case but fully aware of Commission / Court's order may be held liable to contempt of Court if they willfully disobey such order. Ss.33, 54 & 58---Injunctive order passed in proceedings of the grievance petition, non-compliance of---Contempt proceedings before the Single Bench, National Industrial Relations Commission---Scope---Employee being active member of union was served Show-Cause Notice by his employer (Pakistan Post Office) who approached the National Industrial Relations Commission ('the Commission') for his redressal; Commission passed injunctive order restraining the Pakistan Post Office from passing any final adverse order qua services of the petitioner, however, his services were terminated during the operation of restraining order and pendency of grievance petition---Against termination order, contempt petition was moved in which Single Bench/Commission set-aside the termination-order holding the same as illegal and passed directions for reinstatement of services of grievance/petitioner---Post Master General, Post Office, (appellants) assailed said reinstatement order before the Full Bench of the Commission---Held, that the contempt proceedings had a vast status in which the Commission could pass order which Commission judiciously deemed appropriate including the reinstatement of the employee---Contemnors must have remained fail to get relief from the Court unless they prove themselves innocent and must have come up with clean hands---In the present case, the contempt petition was still pending for adjudication and no final order had been passed---Three out of five contemnors had challenged the impugned order, whereas memo of the appeal bore signature of only one appellant---Affidavit appended with the present appeal was filed by a person /appellant showing the designation instead of the name and address of the person---Name of the applicant in affidavit must be filled ---Appellants had already raised all the legal as well as factual points including the applicability of the relevant Labour Laws (Industrial Relations Act 2012) as well as the order impugned in present appeal as coram non judice in the written reply of the petition ---All these points / objection had been discussed at length by the Member in the impugned order and gave anxious consideration and on which the well-reasoned order had been passed---No other fresh or new law point and factual discrepancy had been pointed out by the appellant in the impugned order---Appellants firstly should implement the order of the Commission and should join the contempt proceedings and prove that the violation of the order of the Commission was not deliberate ---Appellants had failed to point out that impugned order passed by the Member Single Bench was the consequences of error of law or illegal or without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction ---Member Single Bench had acted lawfully by issuing directions to the appellants to implement reinstatement order and to submit implementation report---Appeal, being not maintainable, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PLC