On 10th February 1973, Mian Bashir, who claims to be the General Secretary of the Union "William Son & Co. Ltd. Workmen Union" lodge: a complaint before the National Industrial Relations Commission alleging therein that Syed Fakir Ayazuddin and Iftikhar Ali, Directors, and Masood Ali Shah, who 'run the management sad administration' of William Son & Co. Ltd. recruited new workers during the period of notice of strike and the currency of the strike, and as such have contravened the provisions of section 15 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and that, therefore, action in accor--dance with law be taken against them.
2. The complainant was accordingly examined on 28th February 1973. He categorically deposed that the Union had given a demand notice to the Management under section 26 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and as bilateral negotiations faire; the Union served a notice of strike on 2nd January 1973. Later, the conciliation failed on 20th January 1973, with the result that the workers commenced strike from 22nd January 1973.
3. Apart from this, It was also alleged that the Management during the pendency of the strike notice and currency of the strike recruited new workers. Lastly, it wag deposed that the Management forced the members of the Union to sign a Memorandum of Settlement (Exh. D. A.). In short, it was alleged that due to coercion, the strike was called off.
4. Eventually, notices were issued to Syed Ayazuddin. Iftekhar Ali and Masood Ali Shah and they were asked to rebut the allegations made by the complainant.
5. At the trial, the case of the prosecution, as detailed above, war fully supported by Mian Bashir and Mohammad Siddique, P. Ws 1 and 2 respectively. Both of them unanimously stated that all the three accused recruited new workers during the period of notice of strike and currency of the strike.
It was further stated that after the commencement of the strike, the Management got Lal Baz and Khan N4 tat arrested by way of victimisation. Lastly, they deposed that they were made to sign the Memorandum of Settlement (Exh. D. A.) under intimida--tion and coercion.
6. Mr. Kalim Akhtar, Assistant Director, Labour, Karachi, appeared as P. W. 3 He deposed at the trial that he acted as Conciliator and called both the parties. However, the concilia--tion failed on 20th January 1973. He was re-examined on 27th March 1973, where he made it clear that the conciliation failed because none of the accused appeared on 20th January 1973,which date had been fixed with the mutual consent of both the parties. He also admitted that a verbal complaint was made by the workmen to him to the effect that the Management have recruited new workers and when Masood Ali Shah (Accused No. 3) was questioned as to whether new workers, had been recruited, he (Masood Ali Shah) admitted before him of having appointed 5 new workers.
Defence case:
7. The accused denied that they had recruited new workers during the period of notice of strike and currency of the strike. They also denied that the workers were made to sign the Memorandum of Settlement as a result of Intimidation and coercion. They raised the plea that they had engaged a contractor, namely Muhammad Yousuf (D. W. 1) to remove the rubbish (waste papers), ate., from the courtyard of the factory and that he (contractor) brought 5 labourers for clearing the rubbish.
8. The evidence of D. W. 1, Muhammad Yousaf, does not inspire confidence. He doused that he had engaged 5 workers to remove the rubbish (waste papers) from the premises of the Company. He failed to mention the name of any of the workers who had boon engaged by him. He further stated that he got the waste papers weighed on two "Weighbridges" vide receipts at Exh. DC to Exh:-DL He also stated as follows: "I admit that these receipts do not contain my name or the name of any other person. I do ant pay any income-tax I have no shop of my own. I had paid Rs. 2,000 or Rs. 2,500 for the waste papers which I purchased from William Son & C,). Ltd. No receipt was given by the Management in token of having received the amount of Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 2,500 from me as price of the waste papers."
He added he purchased waste papers at the rate of Rs. 8 50 per maund. Lastly, he admitted that the sale transactions took place when there was a strike in the factory. According to the receipts referred to above, the weight of the waste papers sold to Muhammad Yousuf (D. W. 1) was 331 maunds and 14 seers. He claims that he had purchased at the rate of Rs. 8.50 per maund. That being the position, the rubbish was worth Rs. 2,816.47. As against this, the Management produced the receipt (Exh. D J) which shows that Rs. 2,459.35 were received from D. W.
1. This receipt was issued in token of having received the amount from Yousuf Bhai. Ordinarily this receipt should have been produced by the purchaser and not by the Management. Apart from this there is a difference of Rs. 357.12. No explanation is forth--coming as to why less amount was charged from the purchaser.
9. The receipts Exh. D. C. to Exh. D. L of the Weigh--bridges reveal that waste papers were removed between 3-1-1973 to 10-1-1973, i.e., before the commencement of the strike. Besides, the receipt Exh.
D. J. shows that the sale price was received on 10-1-1973. As against this, Muhammad Yousuf (D. W.
1) clearly deposed is bb statement that he had removed he rubbish when the workers were on strike. Needless to recapitulate that the workers commenced strike from 22nd January 1973. It is, therefore, clear teat the statement of Muhammad Yousuf (D. W. 1) is hopelessly contradicted by facts on record. Further, Muhammad Yousuf (D. W. 1) is a man of no substance and as such I am not prepared to place reliance on his statement. I have accordingly no hesitation in bolding that false witness was produced by the accused to bolster up the defence case. I accordingly reject his testimony.
10. The only point for consideration is whether or not the accused have engaged new workers the statement of P. W. 3, Kalim Akhtar, is clear on the point. He has stated that Masood Ali Shah (Accused No. 3) admitted before him that the Management had recruited new workers for "general work". BC that as it may, there is no reason to disbelieve the unanimous statement of the prosecution witness, which has not been smashed by the defence. Since there is consensus of the evidence on the point, I am inclined to hold that the accused did recruit new workers during the period of - the strike notice and currency of the strike. As such, the accused have contravened the provisions of section 15 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
11. The question whether or not the Memorandum of Settlement was signed by the workers as a result of intimidation and coercion would be decided by the Labour Court, Karachi, where the complainant has already made an application under section 32(1-A) of the Industrial Relation9 Ordinance for adjudica--tion of the dispute.
12. For the reasons stated above, I find that the prosecution have succeeded in bringing home the guilt to the accused. It may be stated at this stage that Syed Fakir Ayazuddin and Iftekhar All (accused Nos. 1 and 2) are the Directors while Masood All Shah (accused No. 3) is the Manager of William Son & Co. Ltd. None of these 3 accused has produced evidence to show that the offence was committed without his knowledge or consent, or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence. As such, each of them is guilty of the offence. Since they have contravened the provisions of section 15 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the3 have committed an offence tinder section 53 (1-A) of the said e Ordinance: I accordingly convict (1) Syed Fakir Ayazuddin, (2) Iftikhar Ali, and (3) Masood Ali Shah, under section 53(1-A) of the I.R.O., 1969, and sentence each of them to one year's R. I. together with a fine of Rs. 2,000 (Rupees two thousand) each; In default of payment of fine to suffer further R. I. for six months each.
13. Before I part with this case, it is necessary to refer to two telegrams one received at Lahore on 3rd April 1973 and the other at Islamabad on 4th April 1973 sent by Mian Bashir (complains at) for the withdrawal of the complaint. Later, on 5th April 1973, Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani, Advocate, for the accused appeared before me at Lahore and presented an application signed 'by Mian Bashir (complainant) for the with--drawal of the complaint.