JUDGMENT On 24th September 1974 a telegram (Exh. T/l.) was received in the office of the Commission at Islamabad from the Colony Woollen Mills, Ismailabad, Multan, wherein it was mentioned that the workers of Colony Woollen Mills had struck work since 23rd September 1974, at 10.00 a.m. Thereupon, the Commission telegraphically directed (Exh. T/2) the President, Vice- President and the General secretary of Colony Woollen Mills, Ismailabad, Multan (CBA) to call off the strike and to refrain from doing any wrongful act. Later, on 28th September 1974, another telegram (Exh. T/3) was received from the Manager, Colony Woollen Mills Limited, Ismailabad, Multan wherein allegation was made that the order of the Commission conveyed to the officebearers of the Union on 25th September 1974, had been disregarded and that Ashfaq Ahmad, Ghulam Rasool and Najaf Hussain alongwith other workers had "gheroed" the Mills Manager, Sbafqat Amin in front of Ismailabad Market and forced him to sign a Memorandum of Settlement and on his refusal to do so, he was manhandled, abused and physically beaten. However, a formal complaint was filed on 30th September 1974, at camp office of the Commission at Lahore by Mukhtar Ahmad Chaudhary, Manager, Colony Woolen Mills, Ismailabad, Multan. The facts enunciated therein by the complainant may briefly be stated as follows :-- 2. The Colony Woollen Mills Limited, Ismailabad, Multan comprises of 745 workers and they have formed the following three Unions:-- (/) Colony Woollen Mills, Labour Union. (iz) People's Labour Unioo, Colony Woollen Mills Limited and Iiii) Workers* Union, Colony Woollen Mills, Limited. Of these, "Colony Woollen Mills Labour Union" is the (CBA) of which Ashfaq Ahmad Awan (accused No. 1) is the General Secretary.
Najaf Hussain (accused No. 2) is the President of "People's Labour Union Colony Woollen Mills Limitted" and Ghulam Rasool (accused No. 3) and Ghulam Shabhir (accused No. 4) are the active Members of the (CBA) (Colony Woollen Mills Labour Union). It was further averred therein that on 30th July 1974 the CBA served a strike notice on the Management and simultaneously delivered a copy thereof to the Conciliator, who eventually convened a meeting of the parties on 28th September 1974. However, the 4 accused which are: (l) Ashfaq Ahmad Awan, (2) Najaf Hussain, (.3)
Ghulam Rasool. (4) Ghulam Shabhir) instigated the workers to commence illegal strike from 23rd September 1974 (10-00 a.m.) which was called off at about 8-00 a. m. on 27th September 1974. On the latter date (27-9-1974) at about 8 00 a. m. accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 namely Ashfaq Ahmad Awan, Najaf Hussain and Ghulam Rasool alongwith other workers manhandled Shafqat Amin, Mills Manager in order to compel him to sign a Memorandum of Settlement to accept all the demands raised by the CBA.
3. On receipt of the complaint, preliminery statement of Mukhtar Ahmad Chaudhary, complainant was recorded. He categorically deposed that the CBA had submitted a Charter of Demands on 17th July 1974 followed by a strike notice dated 30th July 1974. He further stated that during the conciliation proceedings, the Union commenced strike with effect from 23rd September 1974, and on 27th September 1974 they manhandled Shafqat Amin aqd threatened him with dire consequences to force him to sign a Memorandum of Settlement. The matter was reported to the Police the same day vide Exh. P-A. Lastly, he stated that since 27th September 1974 they did not allow Shafqat Amin, Mills Manager, Spinning Master and Dyeing Master from entering the Mills* premises. Since the statement referred to above prima facie, revealed the contravention of the provisions of section I6 (1) (d) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, notices were issued to the accused to appear before the Commission on 14th October 1974. They were also directed to allow the 3 officers to enter the Mills. On the same day, the statement of Shafqat Amin, Mills Manager was recorded which revealed that the order of the Commission dated 30th September 1974, had been flouted and that he was not allowed to enter the Mills* premises. As such the accused were called upon to explain as to why they should not be hauled up under section 22-C of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Needless to add that separate proceedings were drawn up under section 22-C of the said Ordinance against the accused.
4. The accused were charge sheeted on 4-11-1974, under section I6 (1X<0 punishable under section 53 of the I.R.O., 1969. At the trial, the case of the prosecution as detailed above was fully supported by Mukhtar Ahmad Chaudhary, Manager, Colony Woollen Mills Limited, Shafqat Amin, Mills Manager, Colony Woollen Mills Limited, Muhammad Rafiq Arshad, Deputy Director, Labour Welfare (Conciliation) Multan and Saadat Ali Bokhari, Dyeing Master, Colony Woollen Mills Limited as P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P. W. 4 respectively. Tne first two prosecution witnesses namely Mukhtar Ahmad Chaudhary and Sbafqat Amin deposed that the CBA served a Charter of Demands on the Management on 17th July 1974 and later on 30th July 1974, they gave a strike notice. They added that before the finalization of the conciliation proceedings, the workers at the instigation and incitement of the 4 accused commenced illegal strike on 23rd September 1974 at about 10- 00 a.m. which was called off on 27th September 1974, at about 8-00 a.m. in pursuance of the order of the National Industrial Relations Commission. On the same day ie. 27th September 1974, the 3 accused namely Ashfaq Ahmad Awan, Najaf Hussain and Ghulam Rasool alongwith other workers belaboured Shafqat Amin, Mills Manager when he was on his way from his residential quarter to his office. They forced him to sign a Memorandum of Settlement and threatened him with dire consequences. The matter, therefore, was reported to the Police vide Exh. P. A. At that time, he was accompanied by Mukhtar Ahmad Chaudhary (P. W. 1) who is an eye-witness to the incident. Thereafter, neither he (Shafqat Amin) nor Aziz, Spinning Master and Saadat Ali Bokhari, Dyeing Master were allowed to enter the premises of the Mills The latter two, however, were allowed to resume duties on 30th September 1974 but Shafqat Amin (P. W. 2) was only allowed to enter the Mills' premises on 16th October 1974, when the accused were reprimanded by the Chairman, National Industrial Relations Commission on 14th October 1974, at Lahore. All this was done to intimidate and coerce the Management to accept their demands which were made on 17th July 1974. The statement of these two witnesses is corroborated by Muhammad Rafiq Arshad, Deputy Director, Labour Welfare (Conciliation), Multan qua the closure of the Mills from 23rd September 1974. He deposed that he had received a copy of the strike notice from the CBA on 31st July 1974, though it had been scribed a day earlier. He also stated that firstly he summoned the parties on 6th August 1974, and thereafter on 28th August 1974.
Later, the meeting was adjourned to 28th September 1974, at the request of both the parties.
However, on 23rd September 1974, he was informed that the workers had commenced strike. He visited the Mills on 24th September 1974 and directed both the parties to appear before him on 25th September 1974. The minutes of the meeting (Exh. P. B ) which had been convened on 25th September 1974 were signed by Ashfaq Ahmad Awan (accused No. 1), General Secretary of "Labour Union" and Najaf Hussain (accused No, 2) President "Peoples Labour Union". The meeting was adjourned to 26th September 1974, but none of the workers participated. He denied the suggestion that the minutes of the meeting had not been read aloud to the parties. It is pertinent to note that the minutes of the meeting contain a reference to the effect that the strike commenced on 23rd September 1974 and was still continuing.
5. Saadat Ali Bokhari, Dyeing Master appeared as P. W. 4.
He unequivocally stated that on 23rd September 1974 the 4 accused entered his Department and incited other workers to stop work. Accordingly, all the workers in his Department (20 in number) struck work. He further stated that the workers of other two shifts reached the Mills but they did not work. According to him the strike continued till 27th September 1974 (8-00 a. m.) He also stated that he was stopped by Ghulam Rasool (accused No. 3) from entering the Mills and was allowed to resume his duty on 30th September 1974.
6. The accused denied the allegations in their statements recorded after the close of the prosecution evidence. They produced two witnesses in defence namely Manzoor Ahmad and Muhammad Akbar Khan, Time Keepers of Colony Woollen Mills Limited as D. W. 1 and D. W. 2 respectively. Manzoor Ahmad (D. W. 1) simply deposed that he resumed his duties at about 2-00 p.m. on 23rd September 1974, and that before his arrival, the Mills had been closed. He admitted in the examination-in-chief that there was strike in the Mills from 23rd to 27th September 1974 (7-30 a.m.). During the cross-examination by the prosecution counsel he stated that he had heard rumour to the effect that it was on the order of the Mills Manager, Shafqat Amin that the looms had been stopped. He had the hardihood to admit that the electricity was in order and that the workers could start looms, if so desired. Lastly, he stated that none of the workers had lodged any complaint for the payment of their wages for the period of strike.
7. The other D. W. namely Muhammad Akbar Khan deposed that his duty hours commenced from 8-00 a.m. to 4-00 p.m. and that at 10-15 a.m. the workers in the Mills stopped work. He added that on enquiry from the workers, he was informed that they had certain demands and as such they had stopped working. He further stated that there was strike in the Mills from 23rd to 27th September 1974. Discussion As noted above, the case of the prosecution has been supported by the prosecuti on witnesses. The statement of Muhammad Rafiq Arsbad (P. W.3) who is the Deputy Director, Labour Welfare (Conciliation) shows that during the conciliation proceedings, the strike commenced and it was still continuing when he convened the meeting on 25th September 1974. ln support thereto he has placed on record a copy of the minutes (Exh. PB) which bears the signature of Ashfaq Ahmad Awan (accused No. 1) General Secretary of "Labour Union" and Najaf Hussain (accused No. 2) President of "People's Labour Union". Apart from this, there is nothing on record to justify the inference that the prosecution witnesses were biased or inimically disposed towards the accused. That being the position, implicit reliance shall have to be placed on their testimony which has not been smashed in cross-! examination. The prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The* evidence on record conclusively shows that the demands were made on 17th 4 July 1974, followed by a strike notice and thereafter, despite the fact that con-j ciliation proceeedings had commenced, the workers at the instigation and' incitement of the accused commenced strike from 23rd September 1974 which was called off on 27th September 1973 (8-00 a. m.). It follows that there was a complete strike from 23rd September 1974 (10-00) a. m. to 27th September 1974 (8-00 a. m.) as a result of which the Management has suffered colossal loss. No evidence has been produced to rebut the allegation qua the manhandling and physical injuries caused to Shafqat Amin. As against this, the defence evidence is stereotyped. On the other hand, the evidence of the two defence witnesses corroborates and supports the version of the prosecution. Needless to recapitulate that Manzoor Ahmad (D. W. 1). admits that there was strike in the Mills from 23rd to 27th September 1974. He also admits that the electricity was in order and that the workers could start looms, if they so desired. He further conceded that he had heard rumour that it was Shafqat Amin (P. W. 2) who had ordered the workers to stop work. He had, therefore, no personal knowledge about the matter. Simillarly, Muhammad Akbar Khan (D. W. 2) frankly admitted that oh enquiry the workers had told him that they had made certain demands and as such they had stopped work.
He also admitted that there was strike in the Mills from 23rd to 27th September 1974.
9. Mr. Pervaiz Aftab, Advocate, who represented the accused raised the following contentions : (0 That the three prosecution witnesses namely Mukhtar Ahmad Chaudbary, Shafqat Amin and Saadat Ali Bokhari were interested witnesses and that, therefore, no reliance could be placed on their evidence. (//)
That the statement of P. W. 3 (Mahammad Rafiq Arshad) did not clearly state that the workers had commenced strike, and (///) That the order of the Commission dated 25th January 1975, showed that the accused had been marked present by the Jobber and, as such, the allegation that they had struck work was baseless. 10. 1 am afraid, all these contentions are baseless. 1 have already mentioned that there is nothing on record to indicate that the prosecution witnesses had any grouse against the accused. That being the position, it is preposterous to urge that their evidence is tainted and should be brushed aside. They have given their evidence in a straightforward manner and it has stood the test of the cross-examination. As far as the allegation of manhandling is concerned, a report was lodged with the Police at the earliest opportunity (Exh. PA). Regarding contention No. (if), it may be stated that a reference has been made by Muhammad Rafiq Arshad (P. W. 3) in bis statement about the strike. Apart from this, the minutes of the meeting (Exh. PB) which was convened on 25th September 1974, clearly show that reference has been made about the strike, lt has also been mentioned therein that the said strike was still continuing. The third contention is that the workers had been marked present by the Jobber and, as such, the only inevitable inference was that they had not struck work. In this respect, I am afraid, the learned counsel nas not followed the case. The prosecution case was that the workers remained present throughout but did not work. This is borne out by the statements of D. Ws. Both of them have unanimously deposed that the workers were present in the Mills. Muhammad Akbar Khan (D. W. 2) clearly stated that on enquiry the workers had told him that they had stopped work because they had certain demands. The mere fact, therefore, that they were present does not ipso facto prove that they bad not struck work. Apart from this, Manzoor Ahmad (D. W. 1) has made it clear that none of the workers had lodged any complaint for payment of their wages. This leads to the conclusion that as they had struck work, they were not entitled to any wages.
10. For the foregoing reasons, I have no hesitation in holding that the case of the prosecution stands proved to the hilt against the accused. I,j therefore, convict all the 4 accused under section 53 (3) of the Industrials Relations Ordinance, 1969, for having contravened the provisions ofj section I6 0) (d) of the said Ordinance. three months each. The question of sentence, however, requires some determination. The major role was p'ayed by Ashfaq Ahmad Awan (accused No. 1) and Najaf Hussain (accused No, 2). They (Ashfaq Ahmad Awan and Najaf Hussain) are sentenced to one year's R. I. together with a fine of Rs.
250 (Rs. two hundred fifty only) each ; in default of payment of fine, further R. I. for 1975 Staff Union v.
National Bant of Pakistan ? (Mamoon A. Kazi, Senior Member) Ghulam Rasool (accused No. 3) and Ghulain Shabhir (accused No. 4) are merely camp-followers. They blindly followed their leaders.
They are, therefore, entitled to some leniency. I, accor dingly, sentence each of them (Ghulam Rasool accused No. 3) and (Ghulam Shabhir accused No. 4} to one day's imprisonment till the rising of the Court ; together with a fine of Rs. 250 (Rs. two hundred fifty only) each; in default of payment of fine, R. I. for three months each. M. Since Ashfaq Ahmad Awan (accused No. 1) and Najaf Hussain (accused No. 2) are the office-bearers of the unions, I direct that they shall cease to hold the office of the Trade Unions and are disqualified from holding any office in any Trade Union during the term immediately following i the term in which they so cease to hold office. N.B.--(1)
Since the accused have been convicted in the main case, I do not consider it proper to award separate punishment under section 22-C of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The file relating to the proceedings under section 22-C of the said Ordinance is consigned to record. (2) A copy of this judgment has been made over to the convicts. They may, if so advised, file an appeal against this judgment within 30 days. Order accordingly.