Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2023 IHC 296
Court / Jurisdiction: Islamabad High Court
Year of Decision: 2023
Decision Date: 2023-08-18
Parties: Pakistan Telecom Mobile Limited (Ufone) and another vs The Learned Single Bench, NIRC, Islamabad and others
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Islamabad High Court on 2023-08-18, officially reported as 2023 IHC 296. In this matter between Pakistan Telecom Mobile Limited (Ufone) and another and The Learned Single Bench, NIRC, Islamabad and others, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
Case cited as 2023IHC296
Court Name: Islamabad High Court Judge(s): Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb Title:Pakistan Telecom Mobile Limited (Ufone) and another vs The Learned
Single Bench, NIRC, Islamabad and others Case No.: W.P.No.1984 of 2022 Date of Judgment:2023-08-18 Reported As: 2023 IHC 296 Result: Petition Dismissed Judgment
JUDGM ENT M IANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB, J:- Through this judgment, I propose to decide writ petitions No.1984/2022, 2029/2022, 2030/2022, 2031/2022, 2032/2022, 2033/2022, 2600/2022, 2601/2022, 2602/2022, 2603/2022, 2604/2022, 4069/2022, 31/2023, 886/2023, 887/2023 and 888/2023 since they entail common legal questions. WRIT PETITION NO.1984/2022 (PAKISTAN TELECOM MOBILE LIMITED VS. THE LEARNED SINGLE BENCH, NIRC AND OTHERS) 2. The record shows that respondents No.2 to 21 were employed against different posts in Pakistan Telecom Mobile Limited ("PTML") (Ufone). At different points in the year 2018, their services were terminated. They accordingly served their grievance notice(s) and following the rejection thereof, filed grievance petitions before the National Industrial Relations Commission ("NIRC"). 3. The grievance petitions were allowed by way of a common judgment dated 21.12.2020 by the Member, NIRC. Against the said order, PTML preferred appeals before the Full Bench, NIRC which were dismissed vide order dated 12.04.2022. 4. Meanwhile, respondents No.2 to 21 filed a complaint under Sections 33(6), 57(a), 68, 69, 70, 75 and 77 of the Industrial Relations Act 2012 ("IRA, 2012") for the commencement of contempt proceedings against PTML's senior management. In the ensuing proceedings, the Member, NIRC, vide order dated 25.05.2022 directed that non-bailable warrants of arrest be issued against Mr. Ahmad Kamal, Vice President, at the PTML's establishment in Blue Area Islamabad. The said order has been impugned by way of writ petition No.1984/2022.
---
## Page 2
WRIT PETITION NO.2029/2022 (PAKISTAN TELECOM MOBILE LIMITED VS. JAVERIA RIAZ AND OTHERS) 5. The record shows that on 15.04.2006, Javeria Riaz/respondent No.1 was appointed as Executive Customer Care in PTML (Ufone) on contract basis. In 2013, respondent No.1 and eleven other similarly placed persons approached the NIRC for the regularization of their services. On 02.07.2013, the NIRC affirmed the stay order in favour of the workmen. During the pendency of the proceedings, respondent No.1 was served with a notice of termination of services dated 08.11.2018. 6. Following the notice of termination, respondent No.1 served her grievance notice dated 27.11.2018 which was regretted by PTML. Respondent No.1 accordingly filed a grievance petition before the NIRC which was allowed by the Member, NIRC vide order dated 21.12.2020. Against the said order, PTML preferred an appeal before the Full Bench, NIRC which was dismissed vide order dated 12.04.2022. 7. Meanwhile, in April 2021, respondent No.1 filed a complaint under Sections 33(6), 57(a), 68, 69, 70, 75 and 77 of the IRA, 2012 for the commencement of contempt proceedings against PTML's senior management. In the ensuing proceedings, the Member, NIRC, vide order dated 25.05.2022, directed that non-bailable warrants of arrest be issued against Mr. Ahmad Kamal, Vice President, at PTML's establishment in Blue Area Islamabad. WRIT PETITION NO.2030/2022 (PAKISTAN TELECOM MOBILE LIMITED VS. SAJID MEHMOOD AND OTHERS) 8. The record shows that on 28.09.2007, respondent No.1 was appointed as Executive Customer Care in PTML (Ufone) on contract basis. In 2013, respondent No.1 and eleven other similarly placed persons approached the NIRC for the regularization of their services. On 02.07.2013, the NIRC affirmed the stay order in favour of the workmen. During the pendency of the proceedings, respondent No.1 was served with a notice of termination of services dated 08.11.2018. 9. Following the notice of termination, respondent No.1 served his grievance notice dated 27.11.2018 which was regretted by PTML. Respondent No.1 accordingly filed a grievance petition before the NIRC which was allowed by the Member, NIRC vide order dated 21.12.2020. Against the said order, PTML preferred an appeal before the Full Bench NIRC which was dismissed vide order dated 12.04.2022. 10. Meanwhile, in April 2021, respondent No.1 filed a complaint under Sections 33(6), 57(a), 68, 69, 70, 75 and 77 of the IRA, 2012 for the commencement of contempt proceedings against PTML's senior management. In the ensuing proceedings, the Member, NIRC, vide order dated 25.05.2022 directed that non-bailable warrants of arrest be issued against Mr. Ahmad Kamal, Vice President, at PTML's establishment in Blue Area Islamabad. WRIT PETITION NO.2031/2022 (PAKISTAN TELECOM MOBILE LIMITED VS. NAZISH ZAHID AND OTHERS) 11. The record shows that on 29.05.2006, Nazish Zahid / respondent No.1 was appointed as Executive Customer Care in PTML (Ufone) on contract basis. In 2013, respondent No.1 and eleven other similarly placed persons approached the NIRC for the regularization of their services. On 02.07.2013, the NIRC affirmed the stay order in favour of the workmen. During the pendency of the roceedings, respondent No.1 was served with a notice of termination of services dated 08.11.2018. 12. Following the notice of termination, respondent No.1 served her grievance notice dated 27.11.2018 which was regretted by PTML. Respondent No.1 accordingly filed a grievance petition before the NIRC which was allowed by the Member, NIRC vide order dated 21.12.2020. Against the said order, PTML preferred an appeal before the Full Bench, NIRC which was dismissed vide order dated 12.04.2022. 13. Meanwhile, in April 2021, respondent No.1 filed a complaint under Sections 33(6), 57(a), 68, 69, 70, 75 and 77 of the IRA, 2012 for the commencement of contempt proceedings against PTML's senior management. In the ensuing proceedings, the Member NIRC, vide order dated 25.05.2022 directed
---
## Page 3
that non-bailable warrants of arrest be issued against Mr. Ahmad Kamal, Vice President, at PTML's establishment in Blue Area Islamabad. WRIT PETITION NO.2032/2022 (PAKISTAN TELECOM MOBILE LIMITED VS. SYED HAIDER RAZA AND OTHERS) 14. The record shows that on 29.08.2006, Syed Haider Raza Naqvi / respondent No.1 was appointed as Customer Facilitation Agent in PTML (Ufone) on contract basis. In 2013, respondent No.1 and eleven other similarly placed persons approached the NIRC for the regularization of their services. On 02.07.2013, the NIRC affirmed the stay order in favour of the workmen. During the pendency of the proceedings, respondent No.1 was served with a notice of termination of services dated 08.11.2018. 15. Following the notice of termination, respondent No.1 served his grievance notice dated 27.11.2018 which was regretted by PTML. Respondent No.1 accordingly filed a grievance petition before the NIRC which was allowed by the learned Member, NIRC vide order dated 21.12.2020. Against the said order, PTML preferred an appeal before the Full Bench, NIRC which was dismissed vide order dated 12.04.2022. 16. Meanwhile, in April 2021, respondent No.1 filed a complaint under Sections 33(6), 57(a), 68, 69, 70, 75 and 77 of the IRA, 2012 for the commencement of contempt proceedings against PTML's senior management. In the ensuing proceedings, the Member NIRC, vide order dated 25.05.2022 directed that non-bailable warrants of arrest be issued against Mr. Ahmad Kamal, Vice President, at PTML's establishment in Blue Area Islamabad. WRIT PETITION NO.2033/2022 (PAKISTAN TELECOM MOBILE LIMITED VS. NOSHEEN BUTT AND OTHERS) 17. The record shows that on 20.02.2006, Nosheen Butt / respondent No.1 was appointed as Executive Customer Care in PTML (Ufone) on contract basis. In 2013, respondent No.1 and eleven other similarly placed persons approached the NIRC for the regularization of their services. On 02.07.2013, the NIRC affirmed the stay order in favour of the workmen. During the pendency of the proceedings, services of respondent No.1 were terminated vide order dated 08.11.2018.A. 18. Pursuant to her termination, respondent No.1 served her grievance notice dated 27.11.2018 which was regretted by PTML. Respondent No.1 accordingly filed a grievance petition before the NIRC which was allowed by the Member, NIRC vide order dated 21.12.2020. Against the said order, PTML preferred an appeal before the Full Bench NIRC which was dismissed vide order dated 12.04.2022. 19. Meanwhile, in April 2021, respondent No.1 filed a complaint under Sections 33(6), 57(a), 68, 69, 70, 75 and 77 of the IRA, 2012 for the commencement of contempt proceedings against PTML's senior management. In the ensuing proceedings, the Member, NIRC, vide order dated 25.05.2022 directed that non-bailable warrants of arrest be issued against Mr. Ahmad Kamal, Vice President, at PTML's establishment in Blue Area Islamabad. WRIT PETITION NO.2600/2022 (PAKISTAN TELECOM MOBILE LIMITED VS. LEARNED SINGLE BENCH NIRC AND ANOTHER) 20. The record shows that Pervez Iqbal / respondent No.2 was appointed as a Key Punching Operator in PTML (Ufone). In 2013, respondent No.2 filed a petition seeking the regularization of his services. During the pendency of the proceedings, services of respondent No. were terminated vide order dated 10.09.2018. 21. Respondent No. 2 accordingly filed a grievance petition before the NIRC which was allowed by the Member, NIRC vide order dated 28.12.2020. Against the said order, PTML preferred an appeal before the Full Bench NIRC which was dismissed vide order dated 12.04.2022. 22. Meanwhile, in 2021, respondent No.2 filed a complaint under Section 33(6) of the IRA, 2012 for the implementation of order dated 28.12.2020. In the ensuing proceedings, the Member, NIRC, vide order dated 25.05.2022 directed that non-bailable warrants of arrest be issued against Mr. Ahmad
---
## Page 4
Kamal, Vice President, at PTML's establishment in Blue Area Islamabad. The said order has been impugned by way of Writ Petition No. 2600/2022. WRIT PETITION NO.2601/2022 (PAKISTAN TELECOM MOBILE LIMITED VS. LEARNED SINGLE BENCH NIRC AND ANOTHER) 23. The record shows that Zafar Iqbal / respondent No.2 was appointed as a Key Punching Operator in PTML (Ufone). In 2013, respondent No.2 filed a petition seeking the regularization of his services. During the pendency of the proceedings, services of respondent No.2 were terminated vide order dated 10.09.2018. 24. Respondent No.2 accordingly filed a grievance petition before the NIRC which was allowed by the Member, NIRC vide order dated 28.12.2020. Against the said order, PTML preferred an appeal before the Full Bench NIRC which was dismissed vide order dated 12.04.2022. 25. Meanwhile, in 2021, respondent No.2 filed a complaint under section 33(6) of the IRA, 2012 for the implementation of order dated 28.12.2020. In the ensuing proceedings, the Member NIRC, vide order dated 25.05.2022 directed that non-bailable warrants of arrest be issued against Mr. Ahmad Kamal, Vice President, at PTML's establishment in Blue Area Islamabad. The said order has been impugned by way of Writ Petition No. 2601/2022. WRIT PETITION NO.2602/2022 (PAKISTAN TELECOM MOBILE LIMITED VS. LEARNED SINGLE BENCH NIRC AND ANOTHER) 26. The record shows that Asad Rafique/respondent No.2 was appointed as Executive Support Centre in PTML (Ufone). In 2013, respondent No.2 filed a petition seeking the regularization of his services. During the pendency of the proceedings, services of respondent No.2 were terminated vide order dated 10.09.2018. 27. Respondent No. 2 accordingly filed a grievance petition before the NIRC which was allowed by the Member, NIRC vide order dated 28.12.2020. Against the said order, PTML preferred an appeal before the Full Bench NIRC which was dismissed vide order dated 12.04.2022. 28. Meanwhile, in 2021, respondent No.2 filed a complaint under Section 33(6) of the IRA, 2012 for the implementation of order dated 28.12.2020. In the ensuing proceedings, the Member, NIRC, vide order dated 25.05.2022 directed that non-bailable warrants of arrest be issued against Mr. Ahmad Kamal, Vice President, at PTML's establishment in Blue Area Islamabad. The said order has been impugned by way of Writ Petition No.2602/2022. WRIT PETITION NO.2603/2022 (PAKISTAN TELECOM MOBILE LIMITED VS. LEARNED SINGLE BENCH NIRC AND ANOTHER) 29. The record shows that Khawaja Adil Hussain / respondent No.2 was appointed as a Key Punching Operator in PTML (Ufone). In 2013, respondent No.2 filed a petition seeking the regularization of his services. During the pendency of the proceedings, services of respondent No.2 were terminated vide order dated 10.09.2018. 30. Respondent No.2 accordingly filed a grievance petition before the NIRC which was allowed by the Member, NIRC vide order dated 28.12.2020. Against the said order, PTML preferred an appeal before the Full Bench NIRC which was dismissed vide order dated 12.04.2022. 31. Meanwhile, in 2021, respondent No.2 filed a complaint under Section 33(6) of the IRA, 2012 for the implementation of order dated 28.12.2020. In the ensuing proceedings, the Member, NIRC, vide order dated 25.05.2022 directed that non-bailable warrants of arrest be issued against Mr. Ahmad Kamal, Vice President, at PTML's establishment in Blue Area Islamabad. The said order has been impugned by way of Writ Petition No. 2603/2022..%i WRIT PETITION NO.2604/2022 (PAKISTAN TELECOM MOBILE LIMITED VS. LEARNED SINGLE BENCH NIRC AND ANOTHER) 32. The record shows that Syed Mohsin Ali/respondent No.2 was appointed as an Executive Customer Care in PTML (Ufone). In 2013, respondent No.2 filed a petition seeking the regularization
---
## Page 5
of his services. During the pendency of the proceedings, services of respondent No.2 were terminated vide order dated 10.09.2018. 33. Respondent No.2 accordingly filed a grievance petition before the NIRC which was allowed by the Member, NIRC vide order dated 28.12.2020. Against the said order, PTML preferred an appeal before the Full Bench NIRC which was dismissed vide order dated 12.04.2022. 34. Meanwhile, in 2021, respondent No.2 filed a complaint under Section 33(6) of the IRA, 2012 for the implementation of order dated 28.12.2020. In the ensuing proceedings, the Member, NIRC, vide order dated 25.05.2022 directed that non-bailable warrants of arrest be issued against Mr. Ahmad Kamal, Vice President, at PTML's establishment in Blue Area Islamabad. The said order has been impugned by way of Writ Petition No. 2604/2022. WRIT PETITION NO.4069/2022 (PAKISTAN TELECOM MOBILE LIMITED VS. LEARNED MEMBER SINGLE BENCH NIRC AND ANOTHER) 35. The record shows that on 12.03.2012, respondent No.2 was appointed as Telephone Operator in PTML (Ufone). Respondent No.2's services were terminated on 01.11.2017 whereafter he filed a grievance petition before the NIRC seeking reinstatement in service with consequential back benefits. Vide order dated 29.05.2019, the Member, NIRC allowed the grievance petition and directed the reinstatement of respondent No.2 with back benefits. Against the said order, PTML preferred an appeal before the Full Bench, NIRC which was dismissed vide order dated 23.09.2019. PTML assailed these orders before this Court in writ petition No.3345/2019 which was allowed vide judgment dated 11.06.2021 and the matter was remanded to the Full Bench, NIRC to decide the appeal afresh. Vide judgment dated 22.10.2021, the Full Bench, NIRC again dismissed the appeal. PTML assailed the said order before this Court in Writ Petition 4481/2021 which was dismissed vide order dated 17.12.2021. PTML assailed the said order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court through CPLA 34/2022 which is still pending. 36. On 13.12.2021, respondent No.2 filed an application for implementation of order dated 29.05.2019 before the NIRC. In the ensuing proceedings, the Member, NIRC, vide order dated 12.10.2022, directed that bailable warrant of arrest be issued against PTML's senior management. The said order has been impugned by way of writ petition No.4069/2022. WRIT PETITION NO.31/2023 (PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY LIMITED VS. ZULFIQAR ALI AND OTHERS) 37. The record shows that on 27.06.1988, Zulfiqar Ali Raza / respondent No.1 was appointed as a Telephone Operator at PTML's establishment. On 10.03.2008, he was relieved under the Voluntary Separation Scheme but was not given his pensionary benefits. Respondent No.1 filed a grievance petition under the Industrial Relations Act, 2008 ("IRA, 2008") before the Punjab Labour Court, Rawalpindi. The said grievance petition was allowed vide order dated 30.04.2010 and it was held that respondent No.1 was entitled to be paid pensionary benefits. Against the said order, Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. ("PTCL") filed an appeal before the Full Bench NIRC which was dismissed vide order dated 20.10.2021. PTCL assailed these orders before this Court in Writ Petition No.3258/2022 which was dismissed vide judgment dated 17.10.2022. 38. On 19.07.2022, respondent No.1 filed a petition under Section 33(6) of the IRA, 2012 for the implementation of the order of the Labour Court dated 30.04.2010. In the ensuing proceedings, the Member, NIRC, vide order dated 07.12.2022, directed that bailable warrants of arrest be issued against senior management of PTCL's establishment. PTCL has filed the instant writ petition to question the jurisdiction of the NIRC to adjudicate upon respondent No.1's application for the implementation of the Labour Court's order dated 30.04.2010. WRIT PETITION NO.886/2023 (PAK ARAB REFINERY LIMITED VS. WAHAB UD DIN AND OTHERS) 39. The record shows that respondents No.1 to 20 served in the establishment of Pak Arab Refinery Company Limited ("PARCO"). Pursuant to the rejection of their requests for regularization of service,
---
## Page 6
respondents No.1 to 20 served grievance notices which were regretted. They filed a grievance petition before the Labour Court at Muzaffargarh but the same was transmitted to the NIRC. 40. On 17.11.2016, the Member, NIRC accepted the grievance petition and directed PARCO to regularize the services of respondents No. 1 to 20 from their dates of appointment within 30 days. Against the said order, PARCO filed an appeal before the Full Bench NIRC which was dismissed. PARCO further assailed these orders through a writ petition before the Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Multan Bench which was dismissed vide judgment dated 13.12.2022. PARCO assailed the said judgment before the Hon'ble Supreme Court through CPLA No.376/2023 which is pending. 41. Meanwhile, respondents No.1 to 20 filed a complaint under Sections 33(6) and 57 of the IRA, 2012 for summoning and punishment of PARCO's senior management for disobeying the order dated 17.11.2016. The same was treated as an application for implementation of the said order. In the ensuing proceedings, the Member, NIRC, vide order dated 08.03.2023, directed that bailable warrants of arrest be issued against senior management of PARCO. PARCO has filed writ petition No.886/2023 to question the jurisdiction of the NIRC to adjudicate upon respondent No.1 to 20's application for the implementation of the Labour Court's order dated 17.11.2016. WRIT PETITION NO.887/2023 (PAK ARAB REFINERY LIMITED VS. MUHAMMAD ASHRAF AND OTHERS) 42. Respondents No. 1 to 10 served in PARCO's establishment as workmen. Pursuant to the rejection of their requests for regularization of service, respondents No.1 to 10 served grievance notices which were regretted. They filed a grievance petition before the Labour Court at Muzaffargarh but the same was transmitted to the NIRC. 43. On 17.11.2016, the Member, NIRC accepted the grievance petition and directed PARCO to regularize the services of respondents No.1 to 10 from their dates of appointment within 30 days. Against the said order, PARCO filed an appeal before the Full Bench NIRC which was dismissed. PARCO further assailed these orders through a writ petition before the Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Multan Bench which was dismissed vide judgment dated 13.12.2022. PARCO assailed the said judgment before the Hon'ble Supreme Court through CPLA No.386/2023 which is pending. 44. Meanwhile, respondents No.1 to 10 filed a complaint under Sections 33(6) and 57 of the IRA, 2012 for summoning and punishment of PARCO's senior management for disobeying the order dated 17.11.2016. The same was treated as an application for implementation of the said order. In the ensuing proceedings, the Member, NIRC, vide order dated 08.02.2023 directed that bailable warrants of arrest be issued against senior management of PARCO. PARCO has filed the instant writ petition to question the jurisdiction of the NIRC to adjudicate upon respondent No.1 to 10's application for the implementation of the Labour Court's order dated 17.11.2016. WRIT PETITION NO.888/2023 (PAK ARAB REFINERY LIMITED VS. MUNAWAR MUMTAZ AND OTHERS) 45. The record shows that respondents No.1 to 4 served in PARCO's establishment as workmen. Pursuant to the rejection of their requests for regularization of service, respondents No.1 to 4 served grievance notices which were regretted. They filed a grievance petition before the Labour Court at Muzaffargarh but the same was transmitted to the NIRC. 46. On 17.11.2016, the Member, NIRC accepted the grievance petition and directed PARCO to regularize the services of respondents No.1 to 4 from their dates of appointment within 30 days. Against the said order, PARCO filed an appeal before the Full Bench NIRC which was dismissed. PARCO further assailed these orders through a writ petition before the Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Multan Bench which was dismissed vide judgment dated 13.12.2022. PARCO assailed the said judgment before the Hon'ble Supreme Court through CPLA No.373/2023 which is pending. 47. Meanwhile, respondents No.1 to 4 filed a complaint under Sections 33(6) and 57 of the IRA, 2012 for summoning and punishment of PARCO's senior management for disobeying the order dated 17.11.2016. The same was treated as an application for implementation of the said order. In the ensuing proceedings, the Member, NIRC, vide order dated 08.03.2023 directed that bailable
---
## Page 7
warrants of arrest be issued against senior management of PARCO. PARCO has filed writ petition No.888/2023 to question the jurisdiction of the NIRC to adjudicate upon respondent No.1 to 4's application for the implementation of the Labour Court's order dated 17.11.2016. 48. Learned counsel for the petitioners, after narrating the facts leading to the filing of the petitions, submitted that the NIRC does not have the power or jurisdiction to punish a party for contempt of Court; that unlike the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 ("IRO, 2002") and the IRA, 2008, the IRA, 2012 has no provision which gives the NIRC powers as could be exercised by the Labour Court under Section 36 read with Section 22B of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 ("IRO, 1969") to punish a party for contempt of Court; that Section 33(7) of the IRA, 2012 provides inter alia that no person shall be prosecuted for not giving effect to an order passed by the NIRC except on a complaint in writing by a workman if the order in his favour is not implemented within the period specified therein; that the NIRC's orders sought to be enforced do not specify the period within which they were required to be implemented by the petitioners; that Section 78 of the IRA, 2012 provides that no Court other than a Labour Court or that of a Magistrate of the First Class shall try an offence punishable under the IRA, 2012; and that accordingly only a Court of a Magistrate could punish the petitioners for contempt of Court provided a complaint had been filed by the NIRC against them. Learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for a declaration to the effect that the proceedings conducted by the Member, NIRC pursuant to the private respondents' petitions seeking the initiation of proceedings for contempt of Court or for the implementation of the earlier orders passed by the NIRC in their favour are without lawful authority and of no legal effect. 49. On the other hand, learned counsel for the contesting private respondents submitted that since the petitioners have contumaciously violated the earlier orders passed by the Labour Court or the Member, NIRC, they are liable to be punished for such violation in accordance with the law; that although Section 78 of the IRA, 2012 provides that no Court other than a Labour Court or that of a Magistrate of the First Class, as the case may be, shall try an offence punishable under the said Act but the said provision does not override Section 33(6) or Section 57(1)(a) of the IRA, 2012; that Section 57(1)(a) of the IRA, 2012 empowers the NIRC to punish any person who disobeys any of its orders or directions with simple imprisonment which may extend to six months or with a fine which may extend to Rs.50,000/- or both; that similarly under Section 57(2)(a),…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.