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(5), 33(6), 33(7), 57(1)(a), 57(2)(a) & 67(8)---National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 2016, Reglns. 45 & 57---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---National Industrial Relation Commission to punish non-compliant / defaulter---Powers---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 Relations 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 unlike the previous laws (Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969), there was no provision in the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, ('the IRA, 2012') which gave the NIRC the powers of a Court of a Magistrate for the purpose of trying an offence---Validity---There are indeed no provisions in the IRA, 2012 which correspond to S. 22B(3)(a) or S. 36 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969---However, Regln. 57 of the National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 2016 ('the Regulations, 2016'), which have been made by the NIRC makes the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, applicable to the proceedings in relation to trial of offences before the NIRC, whereas Regln. 45 of the Regulations, 2016 provides that the procedure prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in regard to suits may be followed, as far as it can be made applicable, in the proceedings for adjudication and determination of industrial disputes, including adjudicating applications brought under Ss. 33 & 54(e) of the IRA, 2012---Vires of the Regulations, 2016 had not been challenged by the petitioner---Even though S. 66(1) of the IRA, 2012, does not require the approval of the Federal Government to be given to Regulations made by the NIRC, these Regulations are to be applied and enforced by the NIRC as long as they remain in the field---Therefore, the NIRC, while proceeding with the petitioner's prosecution under S. 33(6) of the IRA, 2012, was to exercise powers and follow the procedure prescribed in the said Regulations---Section 57 of the IRA, 2012, confers certain additional powers on the NIRC---Under S. 57(1)(a), the NIRC has the power to punish any person who obstructs or abuses its process or disobeys any of its orders or directions or does anything which tends to prejudice the case of a party before it, or tends to bring it or any of its members in relation to proceedings of the NIRC into hatred or contempt, or does anything which, by law, constitutes contempt of Court, with simple imprisonment which may extend to six months or a fine which may extend to Rs.50,000/- or with both---Powers of the NIRC under S.57(1)(a) are akin to the powers to punish for contempt of Court---For the exercise of its powers under S.57(1)(a), the NIRC need not refer or send the case to a Labour Court or a Court of a Magistrate---Power under the S. 57(1)(a) has been conferred on the NIRC to exercise---It is perhaps for this very reason that S.57(2)(a) empowers the Commission to initiate prosecution, trial or proceedings, or take action, with regard to any matter relating to its functions---It was not disputed that the order dated 18.06.2019 passed by the learned Member, NIRC was to be considered as an order passed under S. 33(5) of the IRA, 2012---If an order passed under S. 33(5) is not given effect to or complied with within seven days or the time specified in the order, S.33(6) makes the defaulter liable to punishment with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with a fine which may extend to Rs.75,000/-, or with both---Non-compliance with directions issued by the NIRC in its decisions or orders would also amount to disobedience of such directions entailing the penalty prescribed in S.57(1)(a) of the IRA, 2012---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 through out.

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

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PLC