' A petition under section 22A(8)(g) of. The Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was filed by Pak.
American Fertilizers Limited Daudkhel (Iskanderabad) through its Senior Manager (IR) on 28-10- 1996 by impleading Employees Union (C.B.A.), Ghulam Shabbir Khan, General Secretary, Sultan Ahmad, President and Sufi Haq Nawaz, Finance Secretary of the Employees Union, mentioning that the factory was being extended with the assistance of Government of Japan with an amount of Rs,12 billions. A settlement was signed between the management and the C.B.A. Union on 6-12-1995 for a period of two 'years which was operative till 15-3-1997. It was agreed that no financial demands shall be raised during the currency of the settlement. The respondents raised certain financial demands orally demanding payment of gratuity on enhanced rate and to declare the Housing Colony as Hostel. It was further stated in the petition that the Housing Colony was damaged by the employees by raising unauthorised construction and also keeping tattles. They had also illegally leased out the Quarters of the colony to unauthorised persons. The management, therefore, decided to take action against the defaulters which caused annoyance to the Employees Union and its Officers. In order to press their demands and to stop legal action against the offenders, the respondents held a meeting of the union members at 11-30 a.m. On 23-10-1996 in front of the canteen lawn within the factory premises. They also took out a procession towards the Project Office, entered the office corridor of the new project where the Japanese Experts were working and raised slogans. The Japanese Experts were harassed, who refused to carry out the work in those circumstances. It was further mentioned, that if the Japanese Experts refused to work, the nation would suffer a huge loss. After the procession, the meeting was addressed by the respondents Nos.2 to 4, who made derogatory remarks against the Managing Director and respondent No,2 also extended threats that M.D. Will be thrown out of premises alongwith his chair.
He also said that the M.D. Was given the titled of "Dog of NFC", who was the worst person in the Organization. The respondents incited the workers to compel the management for acceptance of their demands. The Contractor of the company also informed through letter, dated 16-10-1996 that threats were extended to him as well for manhandling and, therefore, demanded security from the management. In view of that attitude, the business of the company and smooth working of the factory and its expansion programme, adversely affected.' The acts committed by the respondents constituted unfair labour practice. It was, therefore, requested that the respondents be restrained from committing further acts of unfair labour practice in the petitioner's establishment and that the respondents and all other connected persons be held guilty of committing unfair labour practice under section 16 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
2. A separate application under Regulation 32(1) and (2) of the N.I.R.C. (Procedure & Functions)
Regulations, 1973, was also filed alongwith the petition seeking a restraint order against the respondents from indulging in further acts of unfair labour practice and holding gate meetings, demonstration and delivering speeches or taking procession against the management, till the decision of the case.
3. The Single Bench of the Commission, vide order dated 29-10-1996 restrained the respondents from indulging in any acts of unfair labour practice and intimidate or harassing the petitioners.
Respondent No,4 Haq Nawaz, appeared before the learned Member and gave an undertaking to be careful in future. On that assurance, the petitioner stated that they did not want to pursue the petition to the extent of Haq Nawaz. Vide order dated 8-5-1997, learned Member dismissed the petition to the extent of respondent No .4 .
4. Another complaint under section 22-C of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was also filed by Zafar Ali Chaudhry, Senior Manager (IR) on 23-6-1996 on the allegations that on 18-6-1997 at about 1400 hours, the respondents stated stopping the vehicles of the contractor and did not allow the entry of the vehicles into the factory as a result of which there was complete cessation of work.
Reports made by the security staff, Industrial Fabrication Co. And Messrs Saffec as well as Toyota Engineering Corporation of Japan, were relied upon and appended with the application.
5. Another complaint was filed by Zafar Ali Chaudhry on 4-11-1996 under section 22-C of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 complaining that in spite of the prohibitory order of the Commission, the respondents arranged a meeting of the workmen in front of the canteen within the factory premises at about 11-30 a.m. On 30-10-1996 and, delivered inflammatory speeches against the management and relied on the security reports appended with the complaint.
6. The respondents filed written comments. Affidavits-in-evidence of witnesses were submitted by the petitioner. The witnesses were crossexmained by the respondents, after several adjournments.
Cost of Rs,2,000 was also imposed on the respondents, which they failed to pay. In spite of repeated opportunities provided to the respondents to produce evidence, they failed to file affidavit-in-evidence or to enter the witness-box. The right of rebuttal was, therefore, closed vide order, dated 25-2-1999. Arguments of both sides were heard.
7. Counsel for the petitioner recapitulated the facts as mentioned in his petition and argued that the respondents gathered within the factory premises on 23-10-1996 at 11-30 a.m. And also collected the other workers and members of their union and held token strike besides bringing procession, holding meeting and addressing it. They also hurled abuses at Zahid Aziz, Managing Director. Respondent No,2 said {{URDU TEXT}} ' He further argued that threats were extended to the officers of the management that if the demands were not accepted, they will be physically injured. The petitioner produced Zafar Ali Chaudhry, Senior Manager, Sher Almas Representative of Messrs Toyota Engineering Corporation, Sajid Hussain Baluch, Security Incharge, and Shehzad Baig, representative of Industrial Fabrication Co., and all the witnesses supported the assertions made in the petition. The learned counsel referred to the provisions of section 16(1)(a) and (d) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and urged that since respondent No,2 had pursuaded the workmen to join the 'trade union during working hours and attempted to compel the employer to accept their demands by using intimidation, coercion, pressure and threat, therefore, he alongwith others committed unfair labour practice and were liable to be penalised under section 53(2), (3) and (4) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
7-A. Mr. H.R. Haider, counsel for the respondent No,2, urged that respondent No,1 was a trade union and therefore, could not be punished and that the petition was not also maintainable because of misjoinder of the parties. He further submitted that during pendency of the petition respondents Nos.3 and 4 were deleted from the list of respondents. Moreover, Ghulam Shabbir Khan, respondent No,2, General Secretary of the CBA Union, was promoted in the meanwhile. Subsequently, he was dismissed from service on 15-3-1999. As such, the petition to his extent has also become infructuous.
8. The counsel further stated that it was a frivolous case. No meeting was held during working hours. The President of the Union also joined hands with the management. Respondent No,2, has already filed a case against his promotion, which is pending adjudication before Mr. Nabi Bakhsh Bhatti. That case is fixed for 29-4-1999. In these circumstances, the petition was liable to be dismissed.
9. I have gone through the evidence, pleadings of the parties and other documents and have thoroughly considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the respective parties. Since the petitioners themselves dropped respondents Nos.3 and 4, therefore, the petition was contested by respondent No,2 only. It is an admitted position that respondent No,2 was General Secretary of the C.B.A. Union- when the alleged incident took place. Although it has been said by respondent No,2 that no meeting was held or procession was taken out by him and other officers of the trade union alongwith workers of the factory on 23-10-1996 at 11-30 a.m. Yet he failed to rebute the allegation through evidence. The petitioner produced four witnesses. All the four witnesses in their affidavits confirmed the incident. These witnesses could not be shaken during cross-examination.
In rebuttal, no affidavit-in-evidence was filed by respondent No,2. Thus the holding of procession, addressing illegal assembly, holding meeting during working hours and extending threats to pressurise the management to accept the demands of the union, are established. It is true that respondent No,1, being a juristic person cannot be punished but respondent No,2, being the General Secretary of the union, it has been functioning through him and other office-bearers of the union. In the capacity of the General Secretary, respondent No,2, incited workers to assemble, who took out a procession, held meeting during working hours delivered derogatory speeches and also extended threats to the management to accept the demands made verbally. The holding of meeting during working hours and taking procession was in flagrant violation of section 16(1)(a) and (d) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Respondent No,2 Ghulam Shabbir Khan, is therefore, held guilty for committing acts of unfair labour practice alongwith other office-bearers and members of the trade union and persuading them to assemble and participate during working hours in the unlawful meeting and precession. However, a lenient view is taken against respondent No,2 for the reasons, that during adjudication of the petition he was promoted and subsequently dismissed from service. He is imposed a fine of Rs,2,000 and in default of payment of fine within one month from the date of order to undergo simple imprisonment or a term of fifteen days. In addition, it is also directed that Mr. Ghulam Shabbir Khan shall cease to hold any office in Employees Union (C.B.A.) Pak American Fertilizers Company and is disqualified from holding any office in any trade union during the term immediately falling the term in which he so ceases to hold office. /order accordingly.