On 13th June 1973, I had acquitted the accused by a short order. I now proceed to give reasons therefor.
2. The facts of the prosecution case may, briefly, be stated as follows:-
3. Ansar Hasan Khan (complainant) was appointed as Accounts Assistant on I-12-1967 in Hussain D'Silva Limited, Karachi. Later, the workers of the Company formed a Union under the name and style of "Hussain "D'Silva Limited Employees.' Union" (hereinafter called the "Union") in 1972. The Union was registered on 8th May 1972 by the Registrar, Trade Unions, Sind, Karachi. The complainant was elected as its President on the same day i.e., 8th May 1972. Thereafter the Management of Hussain D'Silva was duly, informed of the names of the office-bearers of the Union.
4. It is alleged that the formation of the Union was resented by the Managing Director of the Company, with the result that on the following day i.e., 9th May 1972, the complainant was served with a charge-sheet and eventually, he was dismissed on 16th May 1972. In short, it is contended that the dismissal was by way of victimization because the complainant happened to be the President of the Union,
5. On the basis of the above facts, the complainant lodged a complaint under section 53-1(A) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before the National Industrial Relations Commission on 31st March 1973.
6. The complainant had originally made an application to the Second Sind Labour Court, Karachi, for his re-instatement. Later, he made an application to the Commission for the transfer of the case on the ground .4 that although a period of more than one year had elapsed, yet no proceedings had been initiated by the said Court. I accordingly, transferred Case No. 122/72 under section 25-A to my file on 8th May 1973. The statement of the complainant was recorded on 2nd May 1973. As it, price facie, revealed the contravention of provisions of section 15 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, notices were issued to M/s. A. R. Hussain and J. L. D'Silva Directors of Hussain D'Silva Limited to appear before the Commission to rebut the above allegations.
7. Briefly stated, the charge against the accused was that they on or about 16th May 1972, terminated the services of the complainant who was working as Accounts Assistant in Hussain D'Silva Limited, by way of victimization because he happened to be the President of the Union, of which the formation was resented by them.
8. At the trial, the complainant appeared as P. W. 1 and reiterated that he was dismissed from service for the reason that the accused wanted to wreck the Union, of which he was the President.
He, however, admitted in the cross-examination that on 17th June 1968 he had received a notice (Exh. DA) signed by the Administrative Manager, whereby he was called upon to explain as to why his (complainant's) services should not be terminat--ed for leaving the office without permission.
He further admitted that on 12th--May 1972, he had submitted his explanation against the order of the manage--ment suspending him for 4 days from 10th to 13th May 1972, and that there--in, he had nowhere mentioned that he was victimized for being the President of the Union. He also admitted that on 17th December, 1971, he had written letter (Exh. DE) to the Management wherein he had mentioned that "I deserve part of the punishment due to my past deficiencies which are already made up".
9. The complainant produced Zafar Habib Malik and Muhammad Yousuf as P. W. 2 and P. W. 3 respectively. The former simply deposed that the complainant was dismissed by the Management on 15th May 1972. The latter, however, made it clear that the complainant remained attached with him and that his work was not up to the mark and satisfactory.
10. The sum and substance of the evidence detailed above is that the complainant had been negligent in the performance of his duty and he was served with notice as far back as 1968 to explain as to why he should not be dismissed. Thereafter, in 1971, in response to a similar notice, he admitted that lie deserved part of the punishment due to his past deficiencies. It is pertinent to note that in his explanation, which he submitted on 12th May 1972 (Exh. DE) he nowhere mentioned that he was being victimized on account of Trade Union activities. Apart from this, his own witness namely Muhammad Yousuf (P. W. 3) has categorically stated that the complainant remained attached with him and that his work was not up to the mark and satisfactory. It is, therefore abundantly clear that the complainant was, dismissed on 16th May 1972 because his work was not satisfactory. Be has therefore, failed to substantiate the allegation that his services had been terminated due to victimization for Trade Union activities. I accordingly, dismiss the complaint.
11. Needless to add that as the complaint was found false, frivolous and vexatious, I issued a notice on 13th June 1973 to the complainant to show cause as to why proceedings under section 193, P. P.
C. Be not initiated against him. Also he was called to explain as to why he should not be fined under section 250, Cr. P. Code for making vexatious accusation.