PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY LTD. vs Mst — 2024 PLC 324 ISLAMABAD

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

PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY LTD. VS Mst. FATIMA Ss. 33(6)& 33(7)---Orders passed by the National Industrial Relations Commission ('NIRC'), non-compliance of---Complaint against the employer for its non-compliance of previous order(s) passed by NIRC---Order of the NIRC not specifying a date /period for compliance of order---Lady, who was appointed as Naib Qasid by Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited ('PTCL') retired on superannuation; her pensionary benefits were allowed by the National Industrial Relations Commission ('NIRC') vide two orders which (orders) were maintained upto the Supreme Court, thus, having attained finality ('the final orders'); on non-compliance, she filed complaint /petition before the National Industrial Relations Commission ('NIRC') praying not only for a direction to pay all pensionary benefits but also for the PTCL (respondents in the said complaint) to be punished for not showing compliance with the final orders---National Industrial Relation Commission allowed worker's complaint / petition against the employer /PTCL---Employer (PTCL) filed constitutional petition assailing order passed by the Full Bench- NIRC whereby its appeal against the said (complaint allowing) order was dismissed---Question was whether the NIRC could punish petitioner/PTCL or any of its (PTCL's) officers for defaults in giving effect to its(NIRC'S) previous (two/final) orders---Contention of the petitioner /PTCL was that S.33(7) of the IRA, 2012, did not permit the prosecution of a person under S.33(6) if the order or decision of the NIRC did not specify a date within which such order or decision was to be implemented---Validity---Section 33(6) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, (IRA, 2012) empowers the NIRC to punish a person with imprisonment (for a term which may extend for a period of one year) or with a fine (which may extend to Rs.75,000/-) or both where such person defaults in giving effect to or complying with an order or a decision of the NIRC within seven days or within the period specified in such order or decision---Section 33(7) of the IRA, 2012, provides that no person shall be prosecuted under S.33(6) except on a complaint in writing (a) by the workman if the order or decision in his favour is not implemented within the period specified therein; or (b) by the NIRC if an order or a decision thereof is not complied with---In the present case, indeed, the two /final orders-in-question passed by the NIRC did not fix a time frame within which the directions issued to PTCL were required to be implemented---Since S. 33(6) of the IRA, 2012, makes a defaulter punishable with imprisonment for not giving effect to or complying with an order or a decision of the NIRC within seven days of such order or decision, High Court viewed that the omission on the part of the NIRC to fix a time frame within which the said orders were to be implemented did not insulate PTCL or its officers from prosecution under S.33(6) if such order or decision was not implemented within seven days---It is only in cases where the NIRC specifies a period of more than seven days within which its order or decision is to be given effect to or complied with that prosecution against the defaulter under S.33(6) cannot be initiated on the lapse of seven days of the order or a decision---In order to avoid prosecution under S. 33(6) for non-compliance with orders or decisions of the NIRC which do not specify a date by which they are required to be given effect to or complied with, such orders or decisions ought to be implemented within a period of seven days---Therefore, contention of the petitioner (employer /PTCL) was without any substance---Although the Member- NIRC's order did not prescribe a time limit within which the said order was to be implemented, since it was admittedly not given effect to or complied with within seven days, respondent/worker was well within her rights to have filed a complaint against the petitioner under S. 33(6) of the IRA, 2012---In the present case, the petitioner/PTCL's reluctance to give respondent her dues in accordance with the orders of the NIRC, which had been upheld by the Supreme Court had caused her to be embroiled in litigation over a period of a decade---Constitutional petition, filed by the employer (PTCL), was dismissed with costs throughout.

PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY LTD. vs Mst — 2024 PLC 324 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PLC