ORDER On 20th July 1974 a telegram addressed to the Chairman, National Industrial Relations Commission was received in the office of the Commission at Islamabad from the Fazal Cloth Mills Limited, Muzaffargarh wherein it was alleged that the workers had occupied the Mills* premises and that they had ousted the supervisory staff of the Mills and had placed embargo on the clearance of manufactured yarn meant for export. Thereupon, the Commission directed the President and the General Secretary of C. B. A. of Fazal Cloth Mills to refrain from doing any wrongful act' to avoid occurrence of unfair labour practice. They were further directed to restore the possession of the Mills and allow the Management to remove manufactured yarn for export. A formal complaint under section I6 (d) of .the I. R. O. 1969, was lodged with the Commission against the 6 accused noted above on 28th August 1974 by Malik Sher Muhammad anager of the Fazal Cloth Mills Limited, Muzaffargarh. The facts mentioned therein may briefly be stated as follows:-- 2.
On 12th June, 1974, the C. B. A. of which the accused are the officebearers and members served a notice of demands on the Management. Later, on 24th June 1974, a notice of strike was given.
Subsequently, on 15th July 1974, the conciliation failed as a result of which the Union commenced strike from 16th July 1974, and ousted the Management from the Mills* premises. They also prevented them from removing manufactured yarn meant for export. Despite the prohibitory order issued by the Commission on 22nd July 1974 (Exh. PA) the possession of the Mills was not restored.
They also did not allow the Management to lift goods. Eventually, on 6th August 1974, the accused accompanied by other workers smashed the window panes and pelted stones on the Rest House wherein the senior staff had taken shelter. They also threatened the staff with dire consequences if they did not prevail on the Management to get their demands accepted. On the same day at about 3-00 p.m. they manhandled Malik Muhammad Hayat, Labour Administrator, tore his clothes and made it clear to him that he would be put to death unless he helped them in getting their demands accepted. In short, the possession of the Mills was restored on 20th August 1974, when the strike was prohibited by the Punjab Government.
3. On 21st September 1974, preliminary statement of Malik Sher Muhammad (complainant) was recorded and as it prlma facie, revealed the contravention of section I6 (1) (d) of the I. R. O., 1969, notices were issued to all the accused to appear before the Commission to rebut the allegation. On 4th November 1974, all the accused were charge-sheeted under section 53 of the I. R. O., 1969 for having contravened the provisions of section I6 (lXd) of the said Ordinance.
4. At the trial, the case of the prosecution as detailed above was fully supported by Malik Sher Mohammad (P. W. 2) and Malik Muhammad Hayat (P. W. 3). Both of them unanimously stated that the demand notice was made by the "Fazal Cloth Mills Workers'
Union" (hereinafter referred to as "the Union") on 12th June 1974 and after the failure of conciliation proceedings, the strike commenced from 16th July 1974, which continued till 20th August 1974. They added that since 16th July 1974, the workers were in complete possession of the Mills and that they did not allow the Management to remove yarn meant for export. They also stated that on 6th August 1974, they pelted stones at the Rest House where supervisory staff had taken shelter as a result of which window pans etc. were smashed. On the same day (6-8-1974) Malik Muhammad Hayat, Labour Administrator was caught hold when he was on his way to his house, manhandled and his clothes were torn. Thereafter his mouth was gagged and he was bodily lifted and brought towards the main gate of the Mills where he was set free. He was clearly told that he would be put to death unless he helped them to get their demands accepted. All this was don* to intimidate and coerce, the Management to get their demands made by th< Union on 12th June 1974, accepted.
Their statement to the effect that th< workers bad ousted the Management and that they were not allowed to lift the yarn meant for export is fully supported by Mr. Tahseen Ali, Superintendent, Central Excise and Land Customs, Circle I, Multan (P. W; 1). He categorically deposed that he visited the Mills on 17th July, 30th July and lst August, 1974 and found the gate of the Mills closed from inside. He also stated that the workers did not open the gate with the result that the Management could not succeed in taking out the yarn from the Mills. The usual practice is that the Management has to inform the Central Excise and Land Customs Officers at Multan as and when they have to export manufactured yarn. Accordingly, he visited the Mills to give clearance certificate with regard to 700 bales of yarn which had to be exported. Since he (Mr. Tahseen Ali) was not allowed to enter the Mills, the 4 applications (Exhs. P/l to P/4) had to be cancelled. During the cross-examination he unequivocally stated that at the time when he visited the Mills, he found considerable number of workers keeping regular watch on the bales so as to prevent their removal. He further stated that he was not allowed to enter the Mills premises and was stopped at the main gate. He added that he could see clearly from outside that the workers were sitting on the bales which were lying inside.
5. The accused when examined after the close of the prosecution evidence, denied the allegations.
They produced 7 witnesses in defence. Mr. Nemat Ullah Khan, Assistant Director, Labour Welfare (D.
W. 1) deposed that on the order of the Joint Director, l abour Welfare, Multan he visited the Fazal Cloth Mills on 6th August 1974, and met Meharul Hassan Sehrai (accused No. 4) and other workers outside the main gate of the Mills. These workers demanded that the Management be asked to disburse wages pertaining to the last fortnight. He added that he told Malik Muhammad Hayat, Labour Administrator to do the needful but he expressed his inability on the ground that the workers might snatch the money forcibly if he tried to disburse wages. However, he (Malik Muhammad Hayat) showed his willingness to make arrangements for payment of wag-?s. He admitted that Malik Muhammad Hayat had told him that the workers had smashed window panes and that he could not move because he was afraid lest the workers might attack him.
6. Mushtaq Ahmad (D. W. 2) Amanullah (D. W. 3), Fazal Ahmad (D. W. 4) and Muhammad Yasin (D. W. 7) deposed that the workers had not taken possession of the Mills and that they had not stopped the Management from removing the yarn.
7. The most important defence witnesses are Malik Abdul Majid, Deputy Commissioner, Muzaffargarh (D. W. 5) and Mr. Muhammad Abdullah, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Muzaffargarh (D. W. 6). The former admitted that the Management of Fazal Cloth Mills had made a complaint in writing to him that the workers had taken possession of the Mills and had ousted the Management. Thereupon, he deputed the Additional Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Superintendent of Police who reported back that the workers had hoisted a flag of red colour on the water tank but had placed no restriction on the exit or entry of anyone in the Mills. In the concluding para, of the examination-in-chief he added that he was informed that the workers had refused to allow the Management to take yarn of fine quality from the premises of the Mills. He had the hardihood to admit that he tried to prevail on the workers to allow the Management to remove yarn of fine quality but they were adamant and refused to do so.
Mr. Muhammad Abdullah, Deputy Superintendent of Police deposed that he visited the Mills at the instructions of the Deputy Commissioner after 8--10 days of the commencement of the strike by the workers. He frankly conceded that when he reached the Mills he found that the room where looms were installed had been locked out from outside and that it was opened by one of the workers at his instructions. He also admitted that he found 1$ truck-load of fine yarn lying there in packed condition and the workers made it clear to him that they would not allow any staff member to remove it but they would themselves get it removed. Lastly, be stated that only Ismail Manager was seen by him in the Mills and no other member of the Management. Discussion 8. It is a common ground between the parties that the strike which commenced on 16th July 1974, was legal. Later, it was banned by the Punjab Govemment. The question for determination is whether or not the prosecution version to the effect that at the incitement and instigation of the accused, the workers ousted the Management and did not allow the removal of fine yarn meant for export is correct. Briefly stated, the prosecution has produced three witnesses in support of their case. Malik Sher Muhammad (P. W. 2) and Malik Muhammad Hayat (P. W.3) have deposed that the Management had been ousted and the workers were in complete possession of the Mills from 16th July 1974. They added that they were not allowing the removal of the )arn. Besides, they deposed that on 6th August 1974, they (workers) pelted stones at the Rest House to intimidate the Management as a result of which window panes etc. were smashed and later on the same day, they manhandled and tore the clothes of Malik Muhammad Hayat and threatened him to death if he failed to help them to get their demands accepted. The statement of these two witnesses is fully corroborated by Mr. Tahseen Ali (D. W. 1) who visited the Mills on 17th July, 30th July and lst August 1974, and found the gate of the Mills closed from inside. He clearly deposed that the workers did not open the gate and as such he was not allowed to enter the Mills* premises. He also deposed that he was stopped at the main gate. The Superintendent, Central Excise and Land Customs is an independent and disinterested officer. As such, there is no earthly reason why implicit reliance should not be placed on his unimpeachable testimony. Suffice it to say that his evidence leads to the irresistible conclusion that the workers were in complete possession of the Mills and that they had not al'owed anyone to enter the Mills. Apart from this, the evidence of Mr. Tahseen Ali finds support from the statement of Malik Abdul Majid, Deputy Commissioner and Mr. Muhammad Abduffah, D. S. P. (D. W. 5 and D. W. 6). The former was constrained to admit that he tried to prevail on the workers to allow the Management to remove yarn of fine quality but they were adamant and refused to do so. Mr. Muhammad Abdullah, Deputy Superimendent of Police also stated that the workers told him that they would themselves get the yarn removed but would not allow any staff member to remove. He also noticed that the room where looms had been installed was locked and that it was opened by a worker.
9. The cumulative effect of the evidence summarised above is that workers at the instigation and incitement of the accused had ousted the Management from the Mills and had placed embargo on the removal of the fine yarn. It may be added that the evidence of Mushtaq Ahmad, Aminullah, Fazal Ahmad and Muhammad Yasin, D.
Ws. is hopelessly contradicted by the statement of Malik Abdul Majid, Deputy Commissioner and Mr. Muhammad Abdullah, Deputy Superintendent of Police who appeared as D.W. 5 and D.W. 6 respectively. As such their evidence is eliminated from consideration. Reference may also be made to the statement of Mr. Ncm at Ullah Khan (D. W. 1) which does not help either party. He simply stated that Malik Muhammad Hayat had shown willingness to disburse wages pertaining to the last fortnight. He could not throw light qua the possession of the Mills. It may be added that Malik Muhammad Hayat had told him that very day that the workers had smashed the window panes of the Rest House and that he could not move because he (Malik Muhammad Hayat) was afraid lest the workers might attack him. Considering that there is nothing on record to justify the inference that the prosecution witnesses were biased or inimically disposed towards the accused, their evidence carries weight.
10. For the foregoing reasons, I have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has succeeded in bringing home the guilt to the accused. It is important to note in this case that tne accused have acted in a very high handedness manner. They took possession of the Mills from 16th July 1974, to 20th August 1974, and disregarded the order of the Commission dated 22nd July 1974. They also piid no heed to the advice of the Deputy Commissioner to allow the Management to lift the yam. Apart from this, they refused entry of Mr. Tahseen Ali (P. W. 1) who was an officer of the Excise Department. All this was done to intimidate and coerce the Management to accept their demands. In short, there has been contravention of section I6 (0(d) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. I, accordingly, A convict all the 6 accused under section 53 (3) of the said Ordinance. The question of sentence, however, requires determination. Maqbool Shah (accused No. 3) and Mehrul Hassan Sehrai (accused No. 4) are the President and the General Secretary of the Union. The others are merely Camp followers. These two labour leaders have taken undue advantage of their position and are mainly responsible for the upheaval. They (Maqbool# Shah, accused No. 3 and Mehrul Hassan Sehrai, accused No. 4) are,r therefore, sentenced to one year's R. I. together with a fine of Rs. 500 (Five hundred only) each; in default of payment of fine, further R. I. for six months each. Shah Nawaz (accused No. 1), Ghulam Farid (accused No. 2), Naseeruddin (accused No. 5) and Yaqoob Ali (accused No. 6) have blindly followed their leaders and as such deserve some leniency. They are sentenced to one day's imprisonment till the rising of the Court together with a fine of Rs. 5Q0 (Five hundred only) each; in default of payment of fine, R. I. for 6 months each.
11. Maqbool Shah (accused No. 2) and Mehrul Hasssan Sehrai (accused No. 4) are the President and General Secretary of the Union. I direct that they shall cease to hold the office of the Trade Union and be disqualified from holding any office in any Trade Union during the term immediately following the term in which they so cease to hold office. N,B.--A copy of the judgment has been made over to the convicts. They may, if so advised, file an appeal against this judgment within 30 days, s. A. H. Order accordingly.