This is a complaint under section 53 read with section 16 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, filed by the employer against a worker alleging that he had committed unfair labour practice.
2. The complainant is Mr. Naeem-ud-Din Qureshi, District Manager, G. T. S, Lyallpur, and the accused is Muhammad Aslam a driver under him. Briefly the facts alleged and stated on behalf of the complainant are these. The District Administration of Lyallpur observed a Traffic week in the end of October, 1975. Besides other items of the programme, one item entrusted to the police was to challan as many drivers as possible and to get them convicted. To achieve their purpose the District Administration established mobile courts. Usually, the procedure was that a Traffic Magistrate would sit at a convenient place on the Road-side and the police would check the vehicular traffic. The defaulters were produced and were told to pay the fine there and then. In case any person had not sufficient funds to pay the fine he was sent to jail.
3. On 28-10-75 three drivers of the Government Transport Service, Lyallpur, were caught by the police and convicted by the Mobile Court. Their offences were that their buses were not fitted with Wiper Machine Fire Extinguisher. The accused claimed that on the same ground soma ether drivers were beaten by the police but the fact bad not been admitted by the complainant. On 29-10-75 at 7-15 A.M. the accused saw Mr. Mahmood Ahmed Khan (P. W. 1), Assistant Traffic Manager, complaining about the excesses of the police because the drivers were being challaned on account of non availability of Fire Extinguisher and Wiper Machine for which the Management was responsible. The accused claimed that the drivers should be given due protection. He was told that the District Man--ager had already seen the Traffic Magistrate who bad promised to take lenient view in the cases of G. T. S. This assurance did not satisfy the accused. At 7-30 a.m. the accused gathered the drivers in the Waiting Hall, delivered a speech, instigated and incited the drivers to go on strike because the proper parts were not supplied to the buses and so the drivers had to face the excesses of the police on account of fault of the Management. Two drivers parked their buses in the main gate. The effect of the parking was that no other bus could leave the bus stand. The District Manager came to the spot. He delivered a speech before the drivers that the Magistrate had assured to take lenient view. However, as soon as the District Manager, came down the accused occupied the stage and told the drivers not to go on work unless satisfactory arrangement was made. Again the District Manager, occupied the stage and forced the workers to call off the strike and to go on duty. All this took about 2 hours. 15 Buses could not leave the bus stand either for Rawalpindi or Sialkot or Lahore. The Management suffered financial loss and the passengers were put to inconvenience. On the basis of above facts it is prayed by the complainant that the accused be convicted for unfair labour practice.
4. The accused denied the above charges. His version is that he did not deliver any speech. He said that the police was present near the bus stand of Chenab Club in the Town of Lyallpur and they were arresting the drivers and the conductors of the buses, so the drivers consulted him as to what should be done. Hs said that he advised them to claim protection from the District Manager, I would not go into the facts of this case. In my considered opinion the action of the Traffic Magistrate as well as the District Manager was illegal. On numerous occasions the High Court had adversely commented on the Mobil--- Courts in the traffic cases. The view of the superior Courts is that it is unfair and against the natural justice if a person is not allowed to defend a criminal case. It appears funny that a person driving any vehicle is caught on the road. He has no other alternative but to pay the fine, to the Traffic Magistrate or to go to jail. Obviously, he does not get any chance to defend himself. Moreover, the Mobile Courts contravened the section 116 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965. This section runs as under: - A Court taking congnizance of an offence under this Ordinance shall, unless for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Court directs other-- wise or when the offence is an offence specified in Part A of the Fifth Schedule state upon tine summons to be served on the accused person that he-
(a) may appear by pleader and not in person or
(b) may by a specified date prior to the hearing of the charge plead guilty to the charge by registered letter and remit to the Court such sum not exceeding seventy five rupees as the Court may specify,
(2) Where the offence dealt with in accordance with subsection (1) is an offence specified in Part B of the Fifth Schedule, the accused person shall, if he pleads guilty to the charge, forward his licence to the Court with the letter containing his plea in order that the conviction may be endorsed on the licence.
(3) Where an accused person pleads guilty and remits the sum specified and has complied with the provisions of subsection (2), no further proceedings in respect of the offence shall be taken against him, nor shall he be liable to be disqualified for holding or obtaining a licence by reason of his having pleaded guilty.
5. The provision is mandatory. The procedure provided for a Traffic Magistrate is to apply his mind soon after receiving the challan and thereafter to ascertain as to what fine should be imposed on the offender. This fine should not exceed Rs. 75 is any case. Thereafter he has to send summons to the offender calling upon him to remit the fine in any manner he likes if he pleaded not guilty. In case he did not do so he was at liberty to attend the Court and to defend the case. In case the offer of pleading guilty is not made to any accused, the conviction would be illegal. Obviously, the convictions made by a Mobile Court on any road are illegal. Whatever, the deterrent effect may be I cannot help saying that the law laid down by the Superior Courts is not being followed. In the present case the complaint of the drivers was that their buses were not fitted with Fire Extinguisher or Wiper Machines. The effect was that they were being challaned and some of them were even being beaten by the Police. It was not the fault of the drivers it their buses were not fitted as such. It was the fault of the District Manger or the Management. However, the drivers had to suffer, because they were not even being challaned but they were being convicted at the same time. They had to pay the fine from their own pocket. The District Manager says that the three drivers who were convicted on 28-10-75 were reimbursed and payment was made to them. It may be so but the conviction stood against them. An entry must have been made on their Licences and if the offence was repeated, their driving licence might be cancelled by the District Authorities.
6. On 29-10-75, some of the drivers refused to drive their buses. Their plea was that as their buses were not fitted with proper parts, therefore they would be challaned. They knew that it was a traffic week. The accused says that the local police was at the crossing of the Chenab Club and the drivers were being challaned. The District Manager says that he had already seen the Magistrate who had given an assurance that a lenient view would be taken. Possibly it means that heavy fines would not he imposed on the drivers of the G. T. S. In any cage they were to be convicted without any fault on their part, In such circumstances, they had a right to refuse to ply their buses on the road, because they would have committed an offence under the Motor Vehicles Ordinance and no employer can force his employees to commit offence during the course of his employment. In case there was any cessation of work on the ground that there was no Fire Extinguisher or Wiper Machines in a bus, it would not amount to illegal strike. The Accused, if all the facts alleged against him are believed, did not commit any offence. He is, therefore, acquitted.