' ATAULLAH SAJJAD (CHAIRMAN).---This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Senior Member of this Commission dated 16-9-1991 whereby he ordered Ishtiaq Ahmad ASI, Raja Muhammad Aslam and Ashiq Moghul, office-bearers of the Pakistan Railways Employees Union (called PREM for the sake of abbreviation) to furnish security in the sum of Rs, 50,000 each for one year to keep peace and maintain public tranquillity. It appears that the relations between the employer and the CBA had become strained and it was the grievance of the employer that the office-bearers of the CBA had been indulging in agitational activities calculated to disturb the smooth working of the Railway. A petition No, 4-A(111)91 was moved on 4-6-1991 wherein it was alleged that two of the respondents namely. Raja Muhammad Aslam and Ashiq Moghul alongwith other workers had embarked on an illegal strike and interfered with the working of the Railway. The learned Senior Member passed an order on the same day directing the respondents to call off the strike and not to commit any unfair labour practice particularly not to stop the trains or commit any act which causes obstruction with the smooth working of the Railway system. The Railway administration, however, filed another petition No,4-A(130)91 on 11-6-1991 wherein it was complained that the stay order passed on 4-6-1991 had not the intended effect on the office- bearers of the CBA and on 6-6-1991 a meeting of the workers was held, who entered the office of the D.S. Railway and indulged in slogan raising. As a result of this meeting, various offices were closed during working hours and Ishtiaq Ahmad As delivered a speech calling upon the Administration to grant Rs,500 as Dearness Allowance to each worker and announce the scales of pay within a week failing which he threatened to paralyse all means of communication. It was further submitted in this latter application that on 7-6-1991 the staff working in different booking offices including the reservation office refused to work under Mr. M.S. Khalid, Commercial Superintendent, Booking, who had been posted against a permanent vacancy and the D.S. Of the Pakistan Railways, Rawalpindi was threatened that the strike would continue if Mr. M.S. Khalid was not transferred. The Railway had to yield under this pressure. Again on 9-6-1991, Naveed Ahmad respondent No,4 in the fresh petition No, 4-A(130)91 and other office-bearers of Pakistan Railway Employees Union declared a token' pen-down strike at the call of the Pakistan Clerks Association.
2. It was complained that the respondents wanted to run the administration at their dictates under the threats of paralysing the running of trains a device to which they had already resorted vide submissions made in petition No,4-A(111)/91. It was prayed that the respondents be called upon not to disturb the working of the Pakistan Railway and refrain from holding meetings and demonstrations during working hours on the premises of the Pakistan Railway. The learned Senior Member passed a prohibitory order on 11-6-1991 to the following effect:-; "They (i,e, respondents) are further required not to stop the running of the trains throughout Pakistan or to commit any unfair labour practice within the meaning of section 16 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 including strike and go-slow or other acts of pressurization. They are also directed not to hold any demonstration, raise slogans or take out processions within the premises of the Pakistan Railways from 5-00 a.m. To 9-00 p.m."
' The case was adjourned for filing written statement to 17-7-1991 on which date, the written statement was filed in respect of the main petition. On the same date i,e, 17-7-1991 a fresh petition was moved against Munawwar Khan and two of the respondents namely; Ashiq Mughal and Raja Mohammad Aslam stating that they had held a meeting on 16-7-1991 and had threatened to hold another meeting of the workers on 18-7-1991 thus posing a threat to the working of the Railways.
The report of the Security Staff was attached with this petition and it was stated that the respondents were going to hold a meeting scheduled for 18-7-1991 at Railway Platform No,2. It was alleged that the speakers had said in their speeches that in the past the union had confined the officers in their rooms, had broken their teeth and cut their ears and if the circumstances in Rawalpindi deteriorated the entire responsibility will lie on the shoulders of the D.S. Railways, Rawalpindi as the cup of the patience of the PREM Union was already full. It was prayed that since the commission of further unfair labour practice was apprehended, the respondents may be restrained from holding meeting at Platform No,2 during working hours on 18-7-1991 or stage illegal strike in the premises of the Pakistan Railway. The learned Member found that no fresh cause of action had arisen and observed that this petition was in continuation of the previous petition, filed on 11-6-1991. He however directed that the prohibitory order dated 11-6-1991 be served on Munawwar Khan, Ashiq Moghul and Raja Muhammad Aslam and further directed the respondents not to commit any unfair labour practice within the meanings of section 16 of the IRO, 1969 including illegal strike or go-slow or any other act of pressurising the Employer. He also directed the respondents not to hold any meetings or demonstrations or raise slogans or take out procession within the premises of the Pakistan Railway from 5-00 a.m. To 9-00 p.m. Particularly at Platform No,2. Rawalpindi Railway Station. The learned Senior Member issued a direction to the S.H.O.
Pakistan Railway Police, Rawalpindi to supervise the implementation of the order dated 11-6-1991 and report the matter to the Court on 30-7-1991 in case there was violation of that order. On 30-7- 1991 the report Exh. CD.1/1 by SHO Railway Police, Rawalpindi was produced by Ghulam Nabi constable. The report said that a procession was taken out on 18-7-1991 by 300/400 workers under the leadership of Ishtiaq Ahmad Asi, Raja Muhammad Aslam and Ashiq Mughal respondents, all of whom were present in person before the learned Member on 30-7-1991. It appears from the orders passed by the learned Senior Member that the position taken by the respondents was that they had not taken out the procession on the Railway premises. On the other hand the petitioner's case was that the procession had porceeded from the D.S. Office Road to the Officers' Rest House where the residence of the D.S. Railway Rawalpindi was also situated. The case of the petitioner was that this procession was taken out on the property of the Railway in order to intimidate, coerce, and pressurise' the officers of the Railway. The learned Senior Member after hearing the objections raised by the respondents found that Ishtiaq Ahmad Asi, Raja Muhammad Aslam and Ashiq Mughal had already committed unfair labour practice and were likely to again disturb the peace and public tranquillity and threaten, intimidate, coerce and pressurise the officers of the Pakistan Railway by taking out processions and conducting unfair labour practice as stated in section 16 of the IRO, 1969. He therefore, issued show-cause notice to the appellants as to why security proceedings should not be initiated against them under section 107, Cr. P.C. Read with Regulation 22(2)(8) of the NIRC (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973 and section 16 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and why each of them should not be required to execute a bond of Rs, 50,000 with two sureties each for a period of one year. The case was adjourned to 16-9-1991. On 16- 9-1991 all the respondents were present with Malik Mehrban their learned representative. The order passed on 16-9-1991 shows that the respondents themselves also argued their case and Ishtiaq Ahmad As stated that the stay order was confined to the Railway as defined in the Railways Act and there was nothing wrong in their taking out procession on the Railway premises. The learned Senior Member, repelled this contention and observed:- "The language of the order is clear. I had not given the order under Railways Act but under the IRO, 1969 and ordinary meanings were to be attached to the term Railway property or premises. The respondents had no right to bring out procession in defiance of the orders of the Court."
' Consequently, he passed a final order asking the present appellants to furnish security in terms which have been mentioned above.
3. In this appeal before us, the learned representative urged that there was no violation of the orders passed on 11-6-1991 and 17-7-1991. He also stated that no enquiry was made as provided under Regulation 32(2). It was also his plea that the reference to section 107, Cr.P.C. To the facts of the case was inapt and no proceedings could be taken under that section.
4. We have considered the arguments raised by the learned counsel and in order to appreciate the same, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of law on this subject.
5. Under section 22-F, the Commission has been empowered to frame. Regulations which may not be strictly in accordance with the Evidence Act, Cr.P.C. And C.P.C. And which are to have effect notwithstanding any inconsistency with the above statutes. Under Regulation 32(2)(e) of NIRC (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973, in cases of unfair labour practice, the Commission in order to meet the exigencies arising out of certain cases and in order to prevent unfair labour practice, may, among other measures initiate security proceedings against persons complained of. Under Regulation 32 Sub-Regulation (2) Clause (a) in cases of unfair labour practice the Commission has to hear the connected persons and hold "such enquiry in such matters as it deems fit". Under Regulation 31, Cr.P.C. Has been generally applied to the trials of the offences under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Chapter VIII of Criminal Procedure Code which deals with Security Proceedings has not been applied to the Commission. This does not mean that by direction to follow "any procedure it deems fit" the Commission has been emancipated from following fundamental and natural principles of a fair hearing. The Regulation itself says that the persons connected with the matter have to be heard and the Commission may hold such enquiry as it deems fit. The rule regarding fair procedure was firmly laid down by the Supreme Court in the 'University of Dacca v. Zakir Ahmad PLD 1965 SC 90. Their Lordships were then concerned with the exposition of principles of natural justice and referred to the following passage from the judgment in Russel v. Duke of Norfolk 1949 All E.R. 109:-- "The requirements of natural justice must depend on the circumstances of the case, the nature of the enquiry, the rules under which the Tribunal is acting, the subject-matter that is being dealt with and so forth."
' It was further observed that: "general consensus of judicial opinion seems to be that, in order to ensure the elementary and essential principles of fairness, as a matter of necessary implication, the person sought to be affected must at least be made aware of the nature of allegations against him, he should be given a fair opportunity to make any relevant statement putting forward his own case and 'to correct or controvert any relevant statement brought forward to his prejudice."
' The question for our consideration therefore is whether the learned Member adopted a procedure which could be called fair and which has not in any way prejudiced the appellants in defending the notice issued to them by the Court in their presence on 30-7-1991 for furnishing security. In view of what was said by the Privy Council in Russel's case quoted above, we have to keep in view the fact that the learned Member was dealing with a special law meant for prevention of unfair labour practice and maintenance of Industrial peace. The, affected Industry in this case was the Railways which provides travel and transport facilities to the millions in Pakistan and any disruption thereof could not only adversely affect the travelling in Pakistan but could also result in interrupting the industrial supplies and transportation of goods.
6. The first requisite however of a fair procedure is that the persons affected have to be informed of the allegations against them and be given an opportunity to explain their side of the case. It was made to appear to the learned Senior Member in petition No, 4-A (111) of 1991 that the two of the respondents had violated the stay order dated 4-6-1991. It was also mentioned in petition filed on 17-7-1991 that the prohibitory order passed by the learned Member on 11-6-1991 had not met complete compliance by the appellants and they were bent upon interfering with the working of the Railway. It was further alleged in the petition dated 17-7-1991 that a meeting was scheduled for 18-7-1991 and that the speakers had threatened that their cup of patience was already full and the administration will be responsible for the consequences. The learned Member was perfectly justified in drawing the inference that he did in issuing a show-cause notice on receipt of report Exh. CD.1/1 placed on record on 30-7-1991. This report also shows that the tone of the speakers was aggressive and accusative and they had threatened the Railway officers with an operation to be performed on 21-7-1991. The show-cause notice was issued on 30-7-1991 in the presence of the appellants and ample time was given to them by fixing the further hearing for 16-9-1991 on which date no cause was shown in writing and no reply was filed to the notice issued by the Court. The correctness of the report has not been denied. On the other hand, it appears from the proceedings of the case which took place on 30-7-1991 and 16-9-1991 that the appellants were heard and they took a stand that they had taken out the procession in the premises which' is not the property of the Railway. The learned Senior Member rightly observed that the object of issuing of the prohibitory order was to prevent the appellants from pressurising the Administration of the Railway or its officers by holding demonstrations or raising slogans or other agitational activities. It is not denied that on 18-7-1991 a procession was taken from Divisional Superintendent's Office road to the Railway Rest House where the Divisional Superintendent has also his residence. The taking out of this procession was obviously in violation of the clear terms of the order passed by the learned Senior Member on 4-6-1991, 11-6-1991 and 17-7-1991 and in the circumstances of the case, he was justified in passing this order. Information had been laid before him that the sensitive Railway Industry was threatened with disruption. The appellants' failure to file a reply to the show-cause notice and their further attempt to justify their action in taking out a procession in the premises of the Railway Rest House furnished complete justification for passing the impugned C order. We find that the procedure adopted by the learned Senior Member was quite fair and no prejudice has been caused to the appellants. Correctness of the report sent by the SHO Railway Police, Rawalpindi was not questioned before the learned Senior Member nor any application was filed to summon any witness in defence. The background of the whole case was enough to furnish a reasonable ground to believe that the appellants were bent upon carrying on their agitational activities and acts of unfair labour practice in spite of repeated prohibitory orders and in the circumstances of the case the preventive action in binding down the appellants was necessary. It is true that reference to section 107, Criminal Procedure Code was not quite appropriate as Chapter VIII of the Criminal Procedure Code has not been specifically made applicable to the Commission but that Chapter being part materia with the law empowering the Commission to initiate security proceedings there is nothing wrong in following the pattern of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.
7. We, therefore, find on the facts of the case that the impugned order was rightly passed and the procedure followed by the learned Member was in accordance with requirements of fairness and justice. Consequently, we dismiss this appeal.