1. This criminal complaint filed under section 15(e) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 by President of Norwich Union Pakistan Staff Association has been assigned to this Court by National Industrial Relations Commission by Order dated 30.4-75 for disposal. On receipt of this complaint, preliminary enquiry was held after notice to the accused and on taking cognizance of this complaint, prosecution evidence was recorded.
2. In support of its case, the Association examined its President Javed Iqbal, Abdul Razzak, Akhtar Hussain, Shah Zaman, Muhammad Rafique and Sial Gul and closed its side on 9-9-1975. The Prosecution has also produced some documents and so some documents were also produced by the Accused in cross-examination. After closing of the evidence of the prosecution, statement of Accused was recorded under section 342, Cr. P. C. But he denied all the allegations levelled against him and professed his innocence. I have also heard Malik Muhammad Saeed for the Complainant and Mr. S. M. Saied for the accused.
3. The Complainant's allegation only is that the Accused pursuaded the members of the Association to resign from the Complainant's Association and so he has committed unfair labour practice. In this Court, however, the prosecution has made series of allegations against the Accused and/or the Management of Norwich Union Insurance Company and in this way the Complainant has set up absolutely a new case in the evidence to the utter surprise of the Accused. In my humble view, this is not warranted by Law as, according to the settled principles of Criminal Law, accused cannot be taken by surprise.
4. I have now to see as to whether the complainant has made out a case where a charge could be framed against the accused. As I have stated herein, above, the only allegation of the complainant is that the accused has been pursuading its members to resign from the Association. The President of the Association Mr. Javed Iqbal has been examined and cross examined quite at length. His evidence in nutshell is that from the date of formation of first Union in 1972, the Accused was very much annoyed and he had told him that he had stabbed the Company from the back. After formation of the Association, the Accused called Mir Jam Dad and pursuaded him to leave the Association and join the Employees Union. Since threats were administered to him, this Mir Jam Dad was constrained to leave the membership of the Staff Association and rejoined the Employees'
5. Union. Similarly, other members of the Association were pursuaded to leave the membership of the Staff Association. The Association requested the Management to deduct subscription from the salaries of the members of the Association through check off and remit the same to the Association and in this respect, the Association sent a letter to the Management along with the list of such persons with their signatures. However, the Management refused to accept this request of the Association. Finding the attitude of the Management hostile towards the Association and the members of the Association unprotected, the President of the Association wrote few letters to the Management and on the basis of these letters, he was charge-sheeted and finally he was dismissed from service. This Mr. Javed Iqbal has also filed a similar Complaint No. 75/75 which is also sub judice in this Court In cross-examination, he had admitted that he has neither been punished nor harassed in any manner till his dismissal and that all benefits were being given to him without any discrimination. He has also admitted that special increments were also granted to him. Since the entire evidence of Mr. Javed Iqbal except that the Accused pursuaded the members of the Association to resign from the Association, is irrelevant for the purposes of this case and is the subject-matter of an independent Complaint No. 75/75, it is not advisable to express my opinion in this behalf as it might prejudice the case of either party. However, so far as the allegations relevant to the present complaint are concerned, I have to see how far he has been supported by other witnesses.
6. The next witness of the prosecution is Abdul Razzak. This witness has nowhere stated in his examination-in-chief that either the Accused or any responsible Officer of the Management ever pursuaded the members of the Association to resign from the membership of the Association or threatened any of the members. This witness is, therefore, of no help to prosecution. The third witness is Akhtar Hussain. This witness has deposed that in January 1975, the Production Manager of the Company asked him to leave the membership of the Association and join the Employees Union. However, this witness did not allege anything against the accused nor he deposed that this Production Manager asked this witness to leave the membership of the Association at the instance of the accused. He has, however, alleged that in fact the Management was not happy with the complainant and so he was pursuaded to leave Trade Union activities. His statement to this effect is merely a hearsay as such pursuasion was not made in his presence. He has also stated that the President of the complainant had informed the Managing Committee of the Association about the pursuasion of Management but the Minutes of the Managing committee have not been placed on record. No importance, therefore, can be attached to the version of this witness particularly when neither the President of the Association has specifically collaborated this witness nor such allegation in particular has been made either in the complaint or in the statements made under sections 200 and 202, Cr. P. C. In the complaint, it has specifically been stated that two persons of the Association of were the called by the Management and they were asked to leave the membership of the Association.
7. The Fourth witness is Shah Zaman. This witness in his examination in-chief had made sweeping allegations to the effect that the members the Association continuously approached them and reported that they were being intimidated by the Management and pursuaded to leave the membership of the Association and to join the Employees' Union. He has not specifically named as to who pursuaded these members. It is cardinal principle of Criminology that specific part is to be assigned to the Accused but here this witness has not done so. In this way, it cannot be said that this Accused did such an act which could be termed as unfair labour practice. This witness in his cross-examination has named Sial Gul, Muhammad Rafiq, Akhtar Hussain and Razzak who are said to have been threatened and harassed and pursuaded to leave the membership of the Association. He has also named Jamdad Mir and Kaisar Rehman. The prosecution has not examined Jamdad Mir and Kaisar Rehman. However, it has examined Akhtar Hussain. Muhammad Rafique, Razzak and Sial Gul. I have already discussed the evidence of Akhtar Hussain and Razzak herein above. I have now to see as to how far this Sial Gul has supported the Prosecution and corroborated this witness Shah Zaman. This Sial Gul has nowhere stated that he was ever asked by any person of the Management to leave the membership of the Association or to join the Employees Union. Not only this but in the cross-examination, he has specifically stated that none bad asked him to leave the Staff Association and to join the Employees Union. In this way, this witness Sial Gul has completely shattered the Prosecution case and falsified the witness Shah Zaman.
8. The Prosecution has also examined Muhammad Rafiq. He has however, alleged that one Mir Muhammad Anwer, Production Manager of the Company had asked him to leave the Association and to join the Employees Union. In his cross-examination, he has, however, specifically admitted that the present Accused neither called him at any time nor ever threatened. In this way, he has also contradicted the witness Shah Zaman.
9. In view of this evidence of the prosecution brought on record, I can safely conclude that the Prosecution has miserably failed to make out any case against the Accused and so I do not find it a fit case in which Charge is to be framed. This sort of complaint is nothing short of misuse of process of Law and so it is dismissed and the Accused is discharged.