1. SHAFFI MUHAMMAD R. AKHUND (CHAIRMAN).-In this application, under Standing Order 18 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, the applicant seeks re-instatement with full back benefits and wages from the respondent.
2. The applicant's case is that he was the permanent workman employed in the respondent- Company as Electrician since to years. On 2nd August 1970, the applicant alongwith other workmen formed a Trade Union and was elected as Finance Secretary in the elections thereof. The application for registration of the Trade Union was made on 5th August 1970, and on the same date, the respondent was intimated accordingly. The latter, however, started harassing, intimidating and victimising the leading workers and officers of the Trade Union, including the applicant. On 8th August 1970, the respondent terminated the services of the applicant illegally and unlawfully and without assigning any reason. The applicant, made representation against the illegal termination of services to the respondent on 18th August 1970, but to no effect. Hence, he has moved this application.
3. The respondents, in the Reply Statement, admit that the applicant was their permanent employee prior to termination of his services on 8th August 1970. They have, however, professed ignorance regarding the formation of the Trade Union or the election of the applicant as its office-hearer.
4. They have denied that any intimation thereof was received by them. They have also denied that the applicant or other workers were harassed or victimised on that account. According to the respondents, the services of the applicant were terminated under the provisions of Standing Order 12 (1) by offering him one month's pay in lien of notice, and thus he was not deprived of any benefit.
5. On this ground, the respondent have challenged the maintainability of the application.
6. During the proceedings, the applicant examined himself, while the respondents examined their Manager Mumtaz Ahmad. The applicant reiterated the facts stated in the application and produced the application for Registration of the Trade Union, the Minutes of the election and list of membership showing the applicant having been elected as Finance Secretary, the certificate of posting of the applicant and intimation to the respondent, the order of termination of services of the applicant and the reply to the representation by the respondent. The applicant adds that on 5th August 1970, he was called in the office of the Manager and, in the presence of 4 Officers, be was asked to take oath on Holy Quran that he would not take any interest in the Union activities, otherwise, he would be turned out. He was called again on the next day and the same methods were repeated. On his refusal, the letter of termination of services was sent to him through the Manager on 9th August 1970. He states further that in the previous yet, he was given double increment by the Company on account of his good work. This statement of the applicant has not been challenged in the cross-examination by the learned representative of the respondents. In fact, in the cross---examination, the applicant was only asked to produce the Certificate of Registration of the Trade Union Exh. R-1, which shows that it was registered en lath August 1970.
7. Now, it is significant that, whereas in the letter Exh. A. W. 1/7 dated 8th August 1970, the applicant has been informed that his services were terminated as no longer required, the respondent's witness, Mumtaz Ahmed, has given quite a different reason. According to him, the applicant is related to one Mr. Qayum the Plant Manager. Since some of the work of the latter was entrusted to the newly appointed Production Manager, the conduct of the applicant became doubtful and his services were terminated on the recommendation of the Production Manager. This witness has, however, neither produced the report of the production Manager, nor was the applicant asked in cross-examination if this was true. Mumtaz Ahmad has not even explained as to how the conduct of the applicant became doubtful all of a sudden, when he had been rewarded for good work only in the previous year. Therefore, clearly, the respondents are trying to conceal the real reason for terminating the services of the applicant, which appears to be none other than on account his Trade Union activi--ties. Indeed, there is sufficient evidence on record to lead to this conclusion: Though the respondents have professed ignorance regarding the formation of the Union, the certificate of posting Exh. A. W. 1/5, shows that intimation was sent to the respondents on 5th August 1970, besides the application for registration sent to the concerned authorities. The fact that the Union was t registered on 13th August 1970 proves that application must have been made some days earlier. Therefore, there appears no reason to doubt the assertion of the applicant that intimation of the formation of the Union was conveyed to the respondents on 5th August 1970.
8. Besides, it does not stand to reason that the respondents would not know the formation of Union of the workers of their factory.
9. Therefore, it is quite clear that the respondents having learnt the formation of the Trade Union and election of the applicant as its office-bearer proceeded to dispense with his services post--haste before the Union could be registered. As already observed, the statement of the applicant regarding the coerceive methods adopted by the Management to dis-associate him from the Union activities stands un-challenged. Consequently, I see no reason to doubt the applicant's claim which stands corroborated by the circumstances. Indeed, there appears to be no other reason. Mumtaz Ahmad admits that there are a number of employees junior to the applicant who are still working in the Factory. Therefore, if this was a case of retrenchment, the respondents were bound to follow the procedure laid down in Standing Order 13 of retrenching the last person. It may be mentioned here that a similar application has been simultaneously moved by another office- bearer of the same Trade Union whose services-- were also terminated by the respondents under similar circum--stances and on the same date. This also lends support to the claim of the applicant.
10. Therefore, the evidence on record and the circumstances leave no doubt in my mind that the services of the applicant were terminated on account of Trade Union activities. The plea of the respondents that it was a termination simpliciter under the provisions of Standing Order 12 is patently false. Consequently there is no substance in their objection regarding, the maintain-- ability of the application. The applicant has followed the procedure, laid down in. Standing Order 18, by bringing his grievance to the notice of the Management through representa--tion Exh. A. W. 1/8 and, getting no redress from that quarter moving the present application within the prescribed the limit. The respondent have clearly indulged in unfair labour practices by terminating the service of the applicant on account of Trade Union activities defined in section 15 of the I. R. O. 1969. Therefore, the prayer of the applicant is granted -and the respondents are directed to re-instate him with immediate effect with full back benefits and wages from the date of termination of his employment till the date he is re-instated in his post with continuity of service.