' This was a complaint under sections 54, 55, I. R.
0. Filed by Mr. Khuda Bux Baloch, the then General Secretary of the Workers' Union. The case of the complainant was that there was a settlement, dated 3rd August, 1974 between the Workers Union and Messer Metropolitan Steel Corporation and all the above-mentioned 4 accused persons were signatories to the settlement. A list of 30 workmen was attached with the complaint and it was alleged that the accused had committed breach of settlement in respect of the above said 30 workmen in three respects :-
(1) House Rent Allowance was to be paid at the rate of 25% of the basic salary as per clause 2 of the settlement. The accused were not paying house rent to the above said 30 workmen at the said rate of 25% of basic pay.
(2) Under clause 4 (g) of the settlement, attendance allowance at the. Rate of Rs, 12 per month was to be paid to each worker, which was not paid to the above said 30 persons.
(3) Dom equivalent to wages of 25 months, had to be paid to each worker. The accused committed a breach, inasmuch as they paid bonus to the above said 30 workmen at the rate of 21 months wages.
' In para. 6 of the complaint a claim was made that all the above said 30 persons were workmen getting less than Rs, 800 per month as wages and they had made a written complaint to the General Secretary, hence, he had filed the present complaint. The learned Presiding Officer after examining the complainant on oath determined the offence under section 54 of the 1. R.
0. (not section 55. R.
0.) and ordered issuance of summons against all the 4 accused.
' The complainant was first examined on 15th January, 1975 and then cross-examined in stages from time to time. Out of the 30 aggrieved persons, the complainant examined one person only viz. Mr. Naeem Farooqui as a prosecution witness.
2. The accused in their statements recorded under section 342, Cr.. P. C. Denied that there was any breach of the settlement of 3rd August, 1974. Their case was that the complainant had filed a false complaint with mala fide intentions to harass them. In fact, he had no locus standi; and had not been authorised by any of the 30 persons to file the present complaint. In support of their claim, they produced letters written by some of the said persons to the effect that they had nothing to do with the complaint and were not aggrieved. The defence theory was that there were about 1100 employees who were divided in different categories according to grades and scales of pay and nature of their duties. The above said 30 persons came within the category of employees called "management cadre" who were not workmen and the terms of the settlement were not applicable to them. They were given different and better benefits and were not aggrieved persons at all. The accused examined 2 persons in their defence.
3. I heard the learned counsels for the parties. The first and foremost legal defect that I noticed in the case was that requirements of section 242, Cr. P. C. We're not complied with. When the accused appeared before the Court no formal charge was framed or read over and explained to them nor were they asked whether they admitted that they had committed the offence or not. This was a mandatory provision of law, without observing which the whole trial was illegal and the proceedings stood vitiated.
' However, there is a Roobkari in respect of those out of which few accused persons at page 63, 67 and 69 of the case file. The Roobkari does not amount to a formal charge and it does not relate to the particulars of the offence or the incident.
4. The burden was on the complainant to prove that there was any) specific breach of the settlement in respect of specific provision. In this respect he relied on the letter Exh. 1/B written to him by 10 persons. A perusal of the letter would show that no breach of settlement was alleged in respect of any specific clause of the settlement. The letter merely stated that the management was delaying to pay arrears to the workers and it "appeared" that the management "might" violate the agreement. These were mere conjectures and fears. The letter requested the General Secretary only to look into the matter as to why the delay had occurred. The delay, if any, and non-payment of arrears was not a breach of settlement and was not claimed as such by the complainant or his witness.
' Since the burden was on the complainant to prove the breach, it was for him to prove that the said 30 persons were entitled to the three benefits as specified by him in the body of the complaint and in his statement on oath. It was an admitted position that all the above said 30 persons were either Senior Technical Assistants or Foremen. The accused claimed that they belonged to the category of "management cadre" and were not workmen and therefore, not entitled to the benefits as mentioned in the complaint, nor were they workmen so as to be governed by the provisions of the settlement that was arrived at between the management and the Workers Union The terms of the settlement were, not applicable to the category of employees called "management cadre", to which the said 30 persons belonged. Mr. Naeem Farooqui, the only witness examined by the complainant, made certain significant admissions which indicated that he was not a workman and was not governed by the provisions of the settlement. His duties were of supervisory nature.
Out of the 30 aggrieved persons, one only was examined as a witness. None of the other 29 persons, who were necessary witnesses was called or examined as a witness. The presumption in law is that the said persons, if examined as witnesses, would not have supported the prosecution.
In fact, majority of the said affected persons had written letters to the management with a copy endorsed to the Labour Court that they had nothing to do with the complaint and had no grievance. A bulk of the evidence was, thus, against the complainant and in favour of the accused.
The evidence led by the complainant consisting of his own statement and that of Mr. Naeem Farooqui alone, will not be sufficient for conviction, particularly so when as many as 29 material witnesses were not cited or examined in Court. I think the case against the accused is not proved. I acquit them of the offences.
' Despite the technical defect in the case that no formal charge was framed, I have discussed the evidence in detail so as to give a finding on merits as well, so that the accused be not dragged in Court over-again, when they have already suffered the vagories of legal procedure for S or 9 long years.