1. ORDER This complaint has been filed by Ahmad Ebrahim Agency Ltd. Caretakers' Welfare Union thro :gh its General Secretary Jaferali against Muslim, Amin Ali A. Hamid and Saleern A. Kara under section 53(1-A) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for committing unfair labour practice within the meaning of section 15 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Succinctly the allegations of the complainant are that the accused persons have been inducing and persuading members of the complainant - Union to dismember the Union and for this inducement they have been offering certain advantages. It is also alleged that the accused persons were inducing the members to resign from the existing Union and to join another Pocket Union to be formed by the Management. .To achieve this object, the accused persons deputed two employees viz. Astana Khan and Zadi for obtaining signatures on blank papers of illiterate workmen for ulterior purpose.
2. The complainant's further allegations are that about 66 Chowkidars have been deputed on permanent vacancies to use them against the complainant- Union and such persons are being paid secretly extra amount to the wages. According to the complainant on 11-1-1975 accused Nos. 2 and 3 with the help of Ambareen Khan and others attacked on the complainant in order to pressurise him to resign from the Union. It is also alleged in the Complaint that the accused persons have been maintaining group of goondas at a secret 1975 Ahmad Ebrahim Agency Ltd.
3. Caretakers Welf. Union v. Muslim 589 (S. Nasir Hussain Jafri, Presiding Officer) place near Boulton Market area who are equipped with unlicensed arms and who are being used against the office- bearers of the Union. In support of its case, the complainant-Union examined its General Secretary Jaferali and Bakhtzada, a Member of the Managing Committee of the Union. Jaferali has deposed that the accused No. 3 called him and the President of the Union on, 4-1-1975 at Head Office of the Company and persuaded him to resign from the complainant-Union and to join the Pocket Union to be formed by the Management and for this purpose some monetary benefits were offered. He, however, refused to agree to this proposal of the accused. Again on 11-1-1975, he along with the President of the Union were called at the Head Office. When he reached there he found all the accused persons present. However, when he was entering into the office, one Barkat started fighting with him and so he could not enter into the office. The other Chowkidars who were present there rescued and separated him. . At that time, one unidentified person came out of the office and attacked on him with the result that he fell down and sustained injuries on his knee. This complainant then went to the private doctor at Golimar for his treatment but neither he approached the Company's Doctor for this purpose nor he lodged any complaint with any authority. He also deposed that he had sent 252 Check-off Forms to the Management for the deductions of the Union's contribution but less amount was deducted and on his enquiry, accused No. 3 informed him that the other.persons had shown their unwillingness to contribute to the Union's fund. He demanded such letters of such members but the accused No. 3 refused to supply the same. He also alleged that Astana Khan and Ambareen used to ask the workers to leave the Union and join their Union which is still in the offing. The Company, according to him, engaged about 66 workers through one Aqil Khan an employee of Habib Bank for minimising the strength of the Union and these persons are being paid on vouchers. Finally, he alleged that in fact the accused #ant to dissolve the Union. Another witness Bakhtzada has stated that on 11-1-1975, the accused called the General Secretary of the Union in the office and when he reached there he was caught hold by Zadi and Arabareen^Khan in the presence of the accused and then at the instance of the accused assaulted the complainant with the result that he sustained injuries on his forehead and the leg. He has also asserted that 66/70 persons have been engaged by the Company without the consultation of the Union and their appointments have been made only to harass and assault the office-bearers of the Union. He also alleged that the Management intends to dissolve the /Union. At a close scrutiny of the evidence of these two witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, I find that the statement of both the witnesses is contradictory in material particulars.
4. Not only this but the version of both the witnesses is contrary to what is stated in the complaint itself. There is no mention in the complaint that the General Secretary and the President were called by the accused on 4-1-1975 and that they were asked to leave the Union. For the first time in evidence, the complainant has stated so. Curiously enough that the supporting witness has not stated anything about 5th of January 1975. In this way, the complainant has improved his statement. The complainant has stated that on 11-1-.1975, when he was to enter into the office he was attacked by one Barkat in the first instance and thereafter one other person whose name he does not know. The supporting witness has contradicted him in the way that according to this supporting witness, the complainant was attacked by Zadi and Ambreen Khan in the presence and at the instance of the accused herein. The complainant does not name any of the accused in the manner as stated by Bakhtzada. This Bakhtzada claims himself to be the eye-witness and further claims that he rescued the complainant from the clutches of the aforesaid two persons whereas the complainant does not even show the presence of this Bakhtzada. Since the complainant has not mentioned the name of Bakhtzada being present at the time of the alleged incident nor his name or the name of any other witness has been mentioned in the complaint itself, it can safely be presumed that this Bakhtzada was not present at the relevant time and so his version cannot be given any importance. It is alleged by the complainant that he sustained injuries on his knee while Bakhrzada stated that he received injuries on his forehead and leg. The complainant stated that after this incident he approached a private Medical Practitioner for his treatment but it is strange that he could not know the name of that doctor or the particular place of his Clinic. He has neither produced any Medical Certificate from the said doctor in support of his contention nor he examined either the Doctor to this effect nor any other witoess. It is an admitted position that the Company has its two doctors for treatment of its employees but the complainant, for the reasons best known to him, did not contact any of these two doctors. It is true that in his cross-examination, he has stated that at the relevant time these two doctors were not available. The incident is said to have taken place at 1-30 p. m. at Qamar House whereas the complainant went to Golimar for the purpose of treatment. Naturally this complainant would have taken at least one hour for reaching Golimar which means he must have been at the doctor's Clinic at about 3-00 p.m. Judicial notice can be taken to certain facts. No private doctor is available at his Clinic at such odd hours. In this way it can be presumed that the complainant did not approach to such private doctor at that time at least. If he had gone in the after-noon then at that time, the Company's Doctor could have also been available. In my view, the stand taken by the complainant, is highly dubious and does not impress me at all. After going through the entire prosecution evidence, I could see one reason of this complaint and that is that the complainant-Union has been aggrieved by the engagement of some workers without its consultations. The complainant has specifically stated in his cross- examination that the Union would be satisfied if the Company appoints workers only through its consent, wonder how the Union could dictate its terms in the matter of employment. The Master is always free to appoint any person whom he considers fit for the performance of specified duties and the Union is not supposed to be consulted unless th$re is an agreement to this effect. \ Reverting to that incident, I would state here that according to the complainant he could not enter into the office of the Company because he was waylaid by one person at the main entrance and therefrom he returned back. He does not say that at the place of the incident any of the accused was present. His statement that the accused herein were in the office could be mere figment of imagination or is based on presumption alone. He admits that each of the accused sits in separate rooms and their rooms would be about 50 feet away from the entrance door. How can he see from the entrance door that who is sitting in the rooms in the office, unless an open place is just in front of ther entrance. Even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that such an incident took place, then too it cannot be said that it was at the instigation of the accused persons particularly when the presence of the accused is not proved. It is to be noted herein that Bakhtzada 59! zada has given a different story to the effect that all the 3 accused sit in one room and that they were also present alongwith the 2 persons named above and instigated them to attack- the complainant. He went further in alleging that accused No. 3 specifically stated at that time that the Company could purchase the Court, Advocate etc., whereas the complainant said not a single word to this effect.
5. After analysing the entire evidence of Bakhtzada and looking to the circumstances of the case, I- am of the firm view that this Bakhtzada is a false witness and had not witnessed the incident at all. , In view of this, no reliance can be placed on the tes imony of this witness. The complainant has asserted in his evidence that he. alongwith the President went to the office of the Company. It is strange that if the Management wanted to harass the office-bearers for the purpose of dismembering the Union why it preferred only to get the General Secretary alone assaulted and why the President of the Union was spared. Even this President of the Union, ' who is most important witness to this incident, has not been brought into the witness-box in order to corroborate the version of the complainant. All the 3 accused have been examined under section 342, Cr. P. C. and they pleaded not guilty. They have filed a written statement, but I do not find it necessary to discuss the stand taken by the accused in the written statement because I am not impressed by the evidence of the prosecution itself. It is the settled principle of law that in criminal cases, the prosecution has to stand on its own legs and it has to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt.
6. The defence is to be considered only when the prosecution has made out a case which if unrebutted would end in conviction. In this case, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case. The upshot of the above discussion is that the presecution having failed to establish its case, this complaint is dismissed under section 253, Cr. P. C. The accused herein are accordingly discharged.