' This complaint has been brought by Aijaz Ali Memon Inspector of Factories on 30th November, 1982 on the allegation that the accused have failed to pay the bonus under section 10-C by 30th June, 1982 and so they are liable to be punished under sections 7(2) and (3) of S.O. Ordinance, 1968.
2. After appearance of the accused in persuance of the summons issued by this Court, charge was read out by my learned predecessor Mr. Mukhtar Ahmed Junejo on 12th March, 1983 but they pleaded not guilty and so the evidence was recorded.
3. Complainant alone examined himself in support of the case and produced one application of the workers as Exh. P. 1, one photostat copy of the notice dated 6th May, 1982 and a copy of settlement dated 31st March, 1983 as Exhs. D/1 and D/2. The accused were then examined on 26th September, 1982. While pleading their innocence, in his further statement accused Idrees pleaded that the matter about payment is still sub judice before Arbitrator Notice P/2 was pasted because of unrest in the labour and to control the labour. By mutual consent of C. B. A. And management, matter was referred to arbitrator. It has also been pleaded that the bonus was not payable because profit was not earned. This statement has also been adopted by the co-accused Saeed. The accused Idrees has also filed this written statement and alongwith it some documents including the balance-sheet for the year 1982 was produced.
4. I have heard Mr. Aijaz Ali Memon complainant, and Mr. A. Ghani Khan, Advocate for both the accused. I have also gone through the entire material on record.
5. According to the evidence of the complainant he filed this complaint on the written application of the workers dated 19th October, 1982 and according to it the bonus for the year 1981-82 was payable by 22nd June, 1982 as per the notice Exh. P/2. In this way, according to the complainant himself, the bonus was not statutory but is on the basis of notice which is purported to have been issued by someone on behalf of the mill on 6th May, 1982. This complainant admitted that he did not make any enquiry from the management as he came to know that the bonus was settled on 6th May, 1982. He admitted the receipt of a settlement dated 31st March, 1983 from the management in the office of the Additional Director Labour vide letter dated 4th April, 1983 and which has been brought on record as Exhs. D/2 and D/1 respectively. At one stage this complainant states that the present complaint was brought by him for violation of S.
0. 10-C. In this way the earning of profit by the management must have been established before complaining the violation of S.
0. 10-C. No evidence whatsoever has been led by the complainant to prove the profit nor he has any where stated that the management had earned profits but it failed to pay statutory bonus. The plea of the accused has however been that firstly it did not earn any profit but sustained losses, secondly the dispute in regard to the bonus for the year 1981-82 has been mutually agreed by the C. B. A., and the management for reference to the arbitrator and where the matter is still pending. The accused have also produced the audited balance-sheet as also the settlement arrived at between C. B. A, and the management. The contents of these documents have also not been denied or disputed though the complainant has showed his ignorance. However, as pointed out above, he admits the receipt of this settlement dated 31st March, 1983 in the office of the Labour Directorate. In fact according to law, the charge is to be brought home to the hilt and the/ accused is only to create a reasonable doubt. In the instant case, there is no evidence from the side of complainant to prove the liability of the accused to pay statutory bonus whereas the accused have submitted sufficient documentary proof in rebuttal. Notice dated 5th May, 1982 made the basis of this complaint cannot be said to be such a document, the violation of which would justify the prosecution and conviction of , the accused. The notice is said to have been issued be the management under compelling circumstances rather coercion, and at least it cannot be considered a declaration under S. a 10-C.
6. In this view of the matter I do not find any substance in this complaint plaint and so it is dismissed. The accused are acquitted of the charge and they are discharged of their bail bonds.
Complaint dismissed.