' This complaint had been lodged by Khuda Bux Baloch against (1) Qamarul Islam, Managing Director, (2) M. Atiqullah, Factory Manager, (3) K. M. A. Chaudhry, Admn and Personnel Manager, and (4) S. A. Nahal, Manager, all of them belonging to the management of Metropolitan Steel Corporation. The complainant was working as Fitter in the Metropolitan Steel Corporation and as stated above the respondents are managing and running the said Corporation which is a taken over industry. The complainant is the General Secretary of the Metropolitan Steel Corporation Workers' Union which is registered trade union and is also the collective bargaining agent of the workmen of the said Corporation. The complainant was dismissed from service on 24th January, 1975 vide letter dated 24th January, 1975. He has alleged that he was victimised for his trade union activities by the respondents and has made the following allegations in the complaint.
2. He was responsible for negotiating a settlement between the Union and the Management of the Corporation which was signed on 3rd August, 1974. This settlement inter al in provided for the payment of height allowance to those permanent workmen who were required to work at a height of thirty feet at the rate of Re. 1 per day. The settlement provided for the payment of House Rent, Conveyance Allowance and other benefits including increase in rate of wages. A copy of the settlement has been filed alongwith the complaint. After. Signing this settlement, a dispute arose between the Company and the Union with regard to the payment of House Rent and Bonus to certain workers designated as Assistants and to such supervisory staff which was covered under the definition of workmen as given in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. In the settlement amongst others it was also provided that bonus equal to 2/ months wages shall be paid to the workers. It was further provided in the settlement that house rent equivalent to 25 per cent basic wages would also be paid to the workers. However, the House Rent Allowance and bonus was not given to the said Assistant and supervisory staff. This dispute was taken up by the complainant in his capacity as General Secretary of the Union with the Management but the respondents failed to implement the terms of the settlement. Consequently, the complainant lodged a complaint against the accused under sections 54 and 55 of the said Ordinance before the 4th Sind Labour Court for failure to implement the aforesaid settlement. Cognizance of the complaint was taken by the learned Labour Court and summons was issued to the accused. A second dispute with regard to the entitlement and payment of height allowance to the workmen working above the stipulated height of thirty feet according to the settlement also arose between the patties. The respondents on this got angered and enraged against the complainant. The respondents being displeased, issued a charge-sheet to the complainant on 1st October, 1974 as a measure of victimisation, intimidation and coercion because the complainant in his capacity as General Secretary of the collective bargaining agent accompanied the officers of the Company for making physical check- up of actual height in connection with the height allowance. There ensued even a third dispute between the Management of the Company and the collective bargaining agent about the age of retirement of the workers employed by the Company when the Company unlawfully retired six workers although the age of retirements was not prescribed under the Standing Orders Ordinance.
The complainant as General Secretary of the collective bargaining agent gave a notice under section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 to the Company in respect of illegal retirement of the workers. Several meetings were held between the Management and the complainant in his capacity as General Secretary of the Collective Bargaining Agent on this issue.
3. It is further alleged that the respondents pressurized the complainant to withdraw the complaint filed before the 4th Sind Labour Court but the complainant refused to do so. On 15th January, 1975 the statement of the complainant was recorded by the 4th Sind Labour Court and he was partly cross-examined by the Representative of the respondents. It is further alleged that the complainant was also persuaded to withdraw the notice under section 26 (1) of the Ordinance with regard to the dispute concerning the age of retirement and on the assurance given by the Company that the matter would be amicably settled, the dispute was withdraw on 1st January, 1975. It is further alleged that immediately on the withdrawal of the aforesaid dispute under section 26 (1) of the Ordinance, the respondent No, 1, issued a letter of dismissal to the complainant on the basis of charge-sheet dated 1st October, 1974. The complainant was refused employment from the morning of 24th January, 1975. It is further alleged that the order of dismissal of the complainant is illegal and amounts to unfair labour practice. It was also alleged that his removal from employment was an act of victimization against the complainant on the part of the respondents. It was further alleged that the finding of the enquiry officer is perverse and against the admitted facts. The dismissal order has also, been attacked on the ground that the enquiry report was not supplied to the complainant despite repeated requests for the same.
4. It may be mentioned that the present complaint was lodged on 10th April, 1975 and was transferred for disposal to Sind Labour Court No, 3 on 22nd April, 1975. The Presiding Officer of the Labour Court summoned respondents 2 to 4, namely, M. Atiqullah, Factory Manager, K. M. A.
Choudhry, Admn and Personel Manager, and S. A. Nehal, Manager, Factory Administration; as accused persons but did not issue process against respondent No, I on the ground that he was no more the Managing Director .Of Messrs Metropolitan Steel Corporation Limited. The case could not proceed before the Labour Court as the respondents went in a writ before the Sind and Baluchistan High Court and obtained a stay order. The above-mentioned writ No 656 of 1975 was decided on 4th June, 1980, wherein it was held that the Commission had no power to transfer the complaint to Labour Court and that the complaint filed by Khuda Bux should have been dealt with by the Commission itself. Consequently, the complaint was taken back on the file of the Commission, and summons were sent to respondents Nos. 2 to 4, namely,; Atiqullah, K. M. A. Chaudhry and S. A. Nehal to answer the charge and rebut the allegations made against them by the complainant Khuda.
Bux. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. The complainant examined himself as P. W. I and one Shah Nawaz as P. W.
2. Further statements of respondents under section 342, Cr. P. C. Were recorded and they produced Syed Ibadat Ali Rizvi as their only defence witness.
' The complainant corroborated the contents of the complaint which have been narrated above in detail. Supporting the prosecution story the complainant further stated that he received a complaint from certain workers against the respondents that they had threatened each worker individually to give up the trade union activities. He also stated that the respondents started harassing him after he filed a criminal complaint under sections 54 and 55 of the I. R.
0. 1969 for not implementing the settlement. He further told that Respondent Atiqullah who was the Factory Manager told him that the height allowance would only be paid when he would withdraw the complaint from the Labour Court. The complainant also stated that the respondent Atiqullah told him to get the proper measurement of the height of the Crane to resolve the dispute of the height allowance. When the height was being measured he came to know that Manager Engineering Services Mr. Farooqi was not properly measuring the height. He raised an objection and told Mr. Farooqui that he was not measuring the height correctly. For this act, he was given a charge-sheet on 1st October, 1974. He produced a copy of the charge-sheet and its reply. He further stated that respondent Atiqullah and S. A. Nehal pressurised him during the course of domestic enquiry to withdraw the complaint from the Sind Labour Court but he refused to do so.
His services were ultimatlely dismissed on 22nd January, 1975. He also produced a copy of letter dated 30th August, 1974 addressed to the Factory Manager (Exhibit P. W. 1/4), asking him to remove the grievances of the workers in relation to non-implementation of the settlement in respect of certain workers whose names were mentioned in the attached list.
6. He also produced a letter written by the workers to the complainant complaining that the management was delaying to pay the arrears to them in respect of bonus, house rent and change of rate of wages, etc. He also produced another letter from two technical assistants namely.
Naeem Farooqui, Syed Shafiq-ul-Mustafa and three foremen Mohammad Kalam, Bashir Mohammad and Mohammad Ismail, (respectively) to the effect that the officers are pressurising them to disassociate from the Union. It was also stated in the complaint that they were served individually with letters by the management on 31st August, 1974 in which their rights had not been clearly mentioned. The complainant also produced a statement Exhibit P. W. 1/7 showing them measurements of the height at which the workers worked on 30 ton New 15 ton, and 3 ton, cranes bearing the signature of Assistant Engineer Mr. Zaidi and Foreman Abdul Hakim. He further submitted that an enquiry was held into the charges and a second show-cause notice was served on him which is Exh. P. W. 1/10. The complainant had requested that the Urdu translation of findings of the enquiry should be supplied to him as he could not read English. He further stated that enquiry was held in Urdu but the findings were given in English by the Enquiry Officer. He produced a letter requesting for the supply of Urdu translation of the enquiry which is Exh. P. W. 1/11. He further stated that in spite of the service of a notice on the management for supplying him the Urdu translation of the findings of enquiry by his counsel it was not supplied to him. He further stated that the management had retired 6 workers and in this connection he had written a letter to the management on 11th January, 1975 which he produced as Exh. P. W. 1/12-A. A notice to attend meeting called by the Duputy Director Labour (East Division), Karachi, in this regard has been produced as Exh. P. W. 1/13. He also produced two dismissal letters dated 22nd January, 1975one written by S. A. Nehal as Exh. P. W. 1/15 and the other under the signature of K. M. A. Chowdhry. He stated that he was dismissed for his trade union activities by the respondents. He also stated that the enquiry officer who held the enquiry was under the influence of the respondents and that the enquiry officer was so much interested that he was present in Court during the present proceedings.
7. In cross-examination he admitted that his union was registered before the industry was taken over. He was the General Secretary of the Union since 1972. He further admitted that after 1970 a general settlement was being signed between the management and the union after every two years. He also admitted that the union had also been entering in settlement with the management prior to 1970. He also admitted to have signed a settlement dated 3rd August, 1974 which is Exh. P.
W. 1/1. He stated that only 15 workers had made a report to him that the management was not implementing the settlement dated 3rd August, 1974. He admitted that he was sent to jail in 1969 and he was not taken on duty but he was later on reinstated in service alongwith 6 other persons.
He admitted to have received a letter dated 10th August, 1977, a charge-sheet on 8th December, 1973 and a letter dated 25th February, 1973. He also identified his signatures on letter dated 20th December, 1973 issued to the complainant by S. A. Nehal, Factory Manager. He also admitted that he was sent to attend a course of workers' education at the expense of the company. He also admitted that he had filed a case as General Secretary of the Union in respect of one Sher Bano under section 25A of the Ordinance before the 5th Labour Court. He also filed an appeal against the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal in this case. He further admitted that he had filed a case under section 34 of the Ordinance for the interpretation of an agreement against the management before the Labour Appellate Tribunal. He admitted that he had also signed a settlement with the management in May, 1972. He denied having any knowledge of the fact that technical assistants and foremen were governed under the rules framed by the B. I. M. He denied the suggestion that 15 workers about whom he had filed a case before the Labour Court were supervisors. He stated that they were technical workers. He submitted that 15 workers were getting either Rs, 800 or less than Rs, 800 per month as wages. He denied the suggestion that supervisors had formed their own association. He submitted that in the industrial dispute raised by him he had demanded the reinstatement of 6 persons only. He denied having any knowledge about 6 retired workers having gone to Labour Court. He also stated that he did not know if the said workers had taken their final dues after they were retired. He again stated on cross-examination that he was victimized and removed from service because he had filed a case before the Labour Court No, 3.
He admitted to have participated in the domestic enquiry and also admitted his signatures on each page of the enquiry proceedings which have been filed in a folder Exh. P. W. 1/23. He stated that he has not filed any case under section 25-A of the Ordinance for his reinstatement. Before the Labour Court he admitted in his statement that respondent No, 3 had asked him to withdraw the case from the Labour Court. By respondent No, 3 he meant K. M. A. Chaudhry. He further stated in cross-examination that when he handed over Exh. P. W. 117 which contained his assessment about the heights of the cranes to respondent Atiqullah, he became angry and said that he should also withdraw his case and that he also issued some threats. He also stated that Mr. Atiqullah had promised that he would himself get the heights remeasured. He also stated that he did not know if the enquiry officer M. A. Siddiqui who was sitting in the Court was called by Mr. Yaqoob. Counsel for the respondents in connection with the production of documents which were summoned by the Court as the representative of the management was out of Karachi. He stated that if the enquiry officer was an independent person he should not have come to assist the learned counsel for the respondents. He also admitted that he was employed in Pakistan Steel. Mills Corporation since 1975 on contract basis in the category of fitter and was getting more than Rs, 1,000. He denied the suggestion that he had filed the case for harassing the respondents.
8. P. W. 2 Shah Nawaz corroborated the statement of the complainant in all respects. He admitted that he was holding the post of Joint Secretary of the Union. He stated that Atiqullah who was Manager of the Factory at that time called him on 7th or 8th February, 1974 and asked him that he (Shah Nawaz) should ask Khuda Bux to withdraw the case against the officers of the company from the Labour Court otherwise he (Atiqullah) would dismiss him (Khuda Bux). Khuda Bux was not allowed to enter the factoy on 22nd January 1975 and was dismissed fom service because he had filed a complaint and had raised other disputes with the management. He also stated that some workers working on certain heights were entitled to height allowance under the agreement. There was some dispute about height on which the workers were working. They were already receiving the height allowance but the management stopped paying the same. Khuda Bux therefore took up the case of the height allowance with the management. Services of 5/6 persons were also terminated and Khuda Bux also took up their cases with the management. He said that due to filing of these cases, the management was displeased with him and they removed Khuda Bux from service. The witness admitted that he is still employed in Metropolitan Steel Corporation. In cross- examination he admitted that he has been acting as office-bearer of the Union prior to 1974 and that for 3 or 4 months in the year 1975 also he had held a post in the Union. He also admitted that some settlements were signed for a period of two or three years. He denied the suggestion that the statement he made about Atiqullah and others was a false statement. He stated that he had taken oath and would not speak a lie. He also denied the suggestion that he had friendly terms with the complainant or that because of his association with Khuda Bux in trade union activities, he was giving the statement.
9. The respondents produced only one defence witness Syed Ibadat Ali Rizvi who was employed as chief time officer in the Metropolitan Steel Mills Corporation since 29th January, 1960. He produced a time card of one Gul Zaman to show that he was absent on 14th January 1974. He identified the signatures of the said Gul Zaman on an application. He also produced a leave card to show that Gul Zaman was on leave on 14th November, 1974. I need not discuss the evidence of Syed Ibadat Ali Rizvi in detail as it relates to a witness Gul Zaman who was not produced by the prosecution before me although he was examined under section 202, Cr. P. C. Before the Labour Court. An application was moved on behalf of the respondents to call Gul Zaman as a Court witness under section 540, Cr. P. C. I could not appreciate the strategy of the learned representative for the respondents. He wanted that I should call Gul Zaman as Court witness in order to prove that he was a liar. The application was however rejected. In spite of that, the learned representative produced a defence witness to prove that Gui Zaman was a false witness. The learned counsel for respondents could have produced some defence witnesses who really could have proved helpful to the defence, e. g.
Mr. Farooqi on whose complaint, Khuda Bux was charge-sheeted or the enquiry officer to prove the enquiry proceedings, etc. Statement of the defence witness would have been of help to the Respondent if Gui Zaman had been examined as a witnesses by the prosecution.
10. The above discussion of the evidence would reveal that the complainant had been taking part actively in the trade union activities in his capacity as General Secretary of the collective bargaining agent. He had raised two industrial disputes which resulted in settlement of 1972 and 1974. As the management was not implementing the settlement in respect of certain workers he took up the matter with the management and ultimately filed a criminal complaint before the Sind Labour Court Sind. He also took up the cause of 6 workers who were retired. He also took up the dispute of the height allowance with the management. In cross-examination the learned representative also brought on record that complainant had filed a case under section 25-A of the Ordinance and against the decision of this case he went up in appeal. He also filed another case under section 34 of the IRO, 1969, for the interpretation of a settlement before the labour appellate tribunal.
11. Now I would like to discuss the circumstances that led to the dismissal of the complainant. Prior to the settlement of 1974, the workers working on a height of 30 ft. Or above were getting a height allowance at the rate of half a rupee per day. This allowance was increased to Re. 1 under the settlement of 1974. The management suddenly stopped paying the same on the plea that the workers were working on a height below 30 ft. The complainant produced Exhibit P. W. 1/7, a statement of measurement signed by Assistant Engineer Mr. Zaidi and Abdul Hakeem foreman to the factory manager. Some of the heights shown in P. W. 1/7 were more than 30 feet high. The Factory Manager in order to resolve the dispute about the height allowance passed on this document to Mr. Farooqi, Manager Engineering Services to re-measures the heights on 28th September, 1974. Mr. Farooqi reported that when he was measuring the heights, the accused interfered with the checking operation. The complainant was charge-sheeted on 1st. October, 1974.
An extract to charge-sheet is reproduced below :- "METROPOLITAN STEEL CORPORATION LTD LANDHI KARACHI ' Our Ref. Ldi./4122 ' LANDHI, 1st October, 1974 ' Mr. Khuda Bux.
' Fitter, Card No, 540, Wires Maintenance Section, Subject :-Charge Sheet : ' On 28th September, 1974 morning when Mr. S. M. Fatooqui, Manager Engineering Services with the assistance of Messrs Hanud All Khan, Masood and Abdul Hakim was taking height measurements of the cranes at old plot of the factory for the purposes of ascertaining it for the payment of height allowance, you interfered with the checking operation in order to pressurise (leaving your place of work at wires Maintenance Section at SSW Plot) the Manager Engineering Services to accept your choice of heights in spite of his persuasion not to do so. You also became rude with him and physically tried to snatch the papers wherein the heights measurements were recorded. The Manager Engineering Services did not yield to your physical threat. These acts on your part amount to "Wilful insubordination to a lawful and reasonable order of a superior, riotous and disorderly behaviour during working hours at the establishment, and an act subversive of discipline."
' This constitutes misconduct as per Standing Order No, 15 (3) (a) and (h) of W.P.I. & C.E. (S. Os.)
Ordinance, 1968. You are therefore required to submit your written explanation within 2 days of the receipt of this Charge-Sheet as to why severe disciplinary action should not be taken against you. ' for METROPOLITAN STEEL CORPORATION LIMITED Sd/- x x x S. A. Nehal ' MANAGER (FACTORY ADMINISTRATION)
12. The above charge-sheet would reveal that the complainant committed three acts of misconduct :-
(I) He left his place of work ;
(ii) Interfered with the checking operation in order to pressurise Mr. Farooqui to accept the complainant's choice of heights ; and
(lil) He became rude with him and physically tried to snatch the papers wherein the heights of the measurements were recorded.
13. Mr. Farooqui in his examination-in-chief before the enquiry officer made the following statement {{URDU TEXT}} ' In reply to a question by Khuda Bux that allegations in the charge-sheet are different from his statement, Mr. Farooqui replied that the decision depends on his statement and the enquiries made by the enquiry officer. Mr. Farooqui further admitted that he was present in the meeting in which Khuda Bux gave a letter (Exhibit P. W. 1/7) to the Factory Manager. This letter which was in relation to different heights contained the signatures of Assistant Engineer Zaidi and Abdul Hakeem Foreman. This letter was passed on by the Factory Manager to Mr. Farooqui, who also admitted that the Factory Manager had directed him to return Exhibit P.W. 1/7 to Khuda Bux. Mr. Farooqui stated that he took the letter produced by Khuda Bux and went to check the heights. Khuda Bux put another question which is reproduced below :- {{URDU TEXT}} ' Mr. Farooqui gave the following reply :- {{URDU TEXT}} ' In reply to another question as to how Khuda Bux interfered when be had already measured the cranes, Mr. Farooqui replied as under {{URDU TEXT}} ' In connection with snatching of papers Khuda Bux put the following question :- {{URDU TEXT}}
14. From the above statement of Mr. Farooqui which was recorded by the enquiry officer it is quite clear that Khuda BUR did not put any pressure on Mr. Farooqui. He merely asked Mr. Farooqui to take measurement of heights from a particular spot and not from where Mr. Farooqui was measuring the heights. Therefore it could not be established that Khuda Bux pressurised Mr. Farooqui or interfered with his work as Mr. Farooqui took the measurements of his own choice. The charge that Khuda Bux became rude to Mr. Farooqui also is not borne out from his statement. In his cross-examination-in-chief he has stated :- {{URDU TEXT}} ' It is quite clear from this statement that he did not utter a single word against Mr. Farooqui himself.
He said something against the management but Mr. Farooqi did not quote the exact words uttered by Khuda Bux.
15. The only charge left to be rebutted is that Khuda Bux tried to snatch the papers from Mr. Farooqi wherein height measurements were recorded. It has come on record from the cross-examination of Mr. Farooqui by Khuda Bux that he had given a statement of measurements which was signed by Assistant Engineer Mr. Zaidi and Foreman Mr. Hakeem. This paper was handed over to Respondent Atiqullah who gave it to Mr. Farooqui. Mr. Farooqui admitted in his cross-examination that it was decided that Mr. Farooqi after completing the measurements would return it to Khuda Bux. It is admitted by Mr. Farooqui in cross-examination that after the measurements were taken Khuda Bux asked for his own document (PW 1/7) from Mr. Farooqui as it was already agreed that it would be given back by Mr. Farooqui to Khuda Bux, Mr. Farooqui did not give this paper back to Khuda Bux and since it was a very important document from the point of view of workers to show that the workers were working at the height of more than 30 feet Khuda Bux tried to take back the paper from Mr. Farooqui, and since he refused to hand it over to him Khuda Bux tried to snatch it from Mr. Farooqui. As admitted by Mr. Farooqui himself it was decided that Mr. Farooqhi would return the document to Khuda Bux and in all fairness he should have returned it to him. An effort to snatch the document in these circumstances would not amount to riotous or disorderly behaviour)
Khuda Bux did not try to bodily harm Mr. Farooqui. He had no evil designs against Mr. Farooqi. The above act of Khuda Bux cannot be called wilful insubordination or disobedience of any reasonable order of his superior and as such does not amount to misconduct under clause (a) or (h) of para.
(3) of Standing Order 15 of W. P. Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. If at all the behaviour of the accused could be considered as improper behaviour which is defined as an act or omission under Standing Order 15 (ii) (b) of the said Ordinance which does not entail a punishment of dismissal.
The presence of Khuda Bux at theB place where the measurements were being taken is quite natural. His absence from his place of duty at the most could be termed as "malingering" which is an act defined under Standing Order 15 (1)(ii) (e) of the said Ordinance. I therefore hold that a case of his dismissal is not made out from the statement of Mr. Farooqui on whose complaint he was charge-sheeted on 1st October, 1974. I need not discuss the evidence of other prosecution witnesses against Khuda Bux in the enquiry as their statements contradict the statement of Mr. Farooqui, Moreover, Mr. Farooqi was the person on whose complaint, Kbuda Bux was charge- sheeted. Having held that the services of the complainant Khuda Bux were illegally dismissed 1 have no doubt in my, mind that this dismissal was by. Way of victimization for his trade' union activities as there is overwhelming evidence on record to show that he was championing the cause of the workers in his capacity a General Secretary of the Union.
16. I therefore hold that offence of unfair labour practice as defined under section 15 (1) (d) of the IRO, 1969, punishable under section 53 (1-A) of the said Ordinance is made out against the respondents No, 2 Atiqullah, Factory Manager, Respondent No, 3 K.M.A. Chaudhry, Admn. & Personnel Manager and S. A. Nehal, Respondent No, 4 Manager Factory Administration. Here, it may be stated that the complainant had impleaded Qamarul Islam who was the Managing Director of the Corporation as Respondent No,
1. The learned Labour Court to whom the case was assigned for disposal after preliminary investigation had not issued process against Respondent No, 1, and as such when the case proceeded in the Commission, only Respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were summoned to stand trial before me. The record of the enquiry proceedings shows that Respondent No, 2 recommended the dismissal of the complainant but final orders of dismissal were passed by Managing Director Qamarul. Islam who is not standing trial before me. Respondent No, 4, S. A. Nehal issued the charge-sheet against the complainant. Second Show-Cause Notice was also signed by D Respondent No,
4. Letter of dismissal was signed by K.M.A. Chaudhry Respondent No,
3. In this way the Respondents are, in one way or other involved in the dismissal of the complainant and they acted on behalf of the main employer Qamarul Islam. It has been laid down under section 15 of the Ordinance that any person who acts on behalf of the employer is also guilty of the offence.
Morever, the answering respondents are also covered under the definition of employers. However, since the dismissal orders were passed by the Managing Director and the answering respondents namely Atiqullah, K. M. A. Chaudhry and S. A. Nehal acted under his instruction, I take a lenient view and convict each respondent namely, M. Atiqullah, Factory Manager, K.M.A. Choudhry, Ex Adm. & Personnel Manager, S. A. Nehal, Manager, Factory Administration of Metropolitan Steel Corporation Limited, Landhi, Karachi, to undergo a sentence till rising of the Court. I further convict each of them to pay a fine of rupees four thousand each and in default of the payment of fine to undergo further sentence of three months' imprisonment. I further direct that the complainant may be reinstated in service from the date he was dismissed with the benefit of continuity of service. It has come in evidence that the complainant is at present employed in Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation. The complainant was called and he informs that he had joined the Pakistan Steel Corporation on 9th October, 1975. He, therefore, remained unemployed for about 10 months. 1, therefore, direct that complainant should be paid full wages for 10 months only. It may also be stated, that the complainant has filed the case on 10th April, 1975, but since a writ petition was filed by the respondents it took about 6 years for the disposal of the case and as such the complainant has been pursuing his case for the last about 7 years. I therefore further direct that another sum of rupees five thousand may be paid to the complainant as compensation by the respondents. I further direct that a sum of rupees two thousand may be paid to the complainant out of the sentence of fine inflicted upon respondents.