1. I have, today, dismissed the titled complaint for the following reasons:--
(1) The incident, dated the 4th December, 1984 appears to be concocted because on that day neither respondent No. 1 nor 3 were present in the factory. Respondent No. 1 was on leave due to sickness while respondent No. 3 was in England on that day.
(2) As for the incident of 20-12-1984, when respondent No. 2 is alleged to have called the complainant in his office and had asked him to withdraw his name from election contest, the incident appears to have been concocted, for the following reasons:
(a) Muhammad Fazal Clerk Grade-III was present in the office alongwith another workman, when respondent No. 2 is reported to have asked him to leave the union, and not to take part in union's election. Respondent No. 2 ought to be given the credit of some intelligence. He obviously could not ask that incriminating question to the petitioner, who had been criticising him on the question of substandard supply of mutton, etc. On comparatively higher rates, in the presence of two witnesses, one of whom was the Vice-President of the Union.
(b) In his statement he said that he received the copy of show-cause notice from respondent No. 2 in his office while in his complaint he said that he received it from respondent No. 1.
(c) The elections programme of the Union shows that nominations were to be declared accepted by the Election Commission on 24-12-1984, thus,. On 20-12-1984 when the Election Commission had not even approved his name there was no question of asking him to withdraw.
(d) There were ten other persons contesting the Union's election. There was no specific reason why the complainant only should have been asked not to contest for the office of Public Relations