' This is a complaint under sections 16(1) (d) and 22-C (a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 against Sher Mohammad respondent who is the President of Adamjee Mills Labour Union, Amangarh, Nowshera. It appears from the narration of facts in the complaint that the Management through Abdul Ghani, had on 27-11-76 brought a complaint against the respondent and 6 others of unfair labour practice. It was alleged in that complaint that after the failure of negotiations for payment of 8 months bonus, which demand had been raised by the Union, Abdul Ghani was attacked and manhandled by the respondent and others. During the pendency of this complaint, the Commission was moved for issuance of an interim order and the then learned Chairman, passed a prohibitory order on 27-11-76 in the following terms :- "You are directed not to commit any unfair labour practice and prohibit officials from coming to the Mills for work and not to search anybody entering either the Mills or the residential area."
2. It is not specifically alleged in this complaint that any direction contained in this prohibitory order was violated but the case of the complainant is that on 2nd of December 1976 the respondent issued a statement in Daily "Jang", Rawalpindi Edition that he would go on hunger strike from 7th of December 1976 if the demand of bonus raised by the Union was not met and if no enquiry was held into the alleged embezzlement of mores of Rupees by the Management and thus violated the interim order.
3. The intention to go on hunger strike from 7th December 1976 appears to have undergone a change because the Chief Minister of the Government of N.-W. F. P. And the Labour Minister called a meeting of the office-bearers of the Union and the Management for 11th of December 1976. No compromise appears to have been reached on 11th of December 1976 and as a result of failure of the negotiations, Sher Mohammad started his hunger strike on 12th of December 1976 at 8-00 a. m.
It is not mentioned in the complaint or the preliminary statement of the complainant as to when this fast was broken but the learned counsel appearing for the complainant states on instructions, that the fast was broken by him on 14th of December 1976 on the intervention of the Chief Minister and the Labour Minister.
4. Alongwith the complaint, certain extracts from the newspapers declaring the intention of the respondent to go on hunger strike were also filed. The news item published regarding the commencement of his fast unto death has also been placed on the record.
5. My learned predecessor, after recording the preliminary statement of the complainant, had on 18-12-76. Directed the complainant to adduce further evidence so that it could be found out whether there was any prima fade case for further proceedings. The case was adjourned thereafter twice and in the meanwhile the learned Chairman was elevated to the Supreme Court.
Before me, the complainant produced Fazal Mohammad Head Constable of the Special Branch, Nowshera to supplement the preliminary evidence. This witness said that he had taken notes of the speech of the respondent delivered on 6th December 1976 and bad reproduced the same in the limine. He placed a copy with speech on the record of this case. This copy shows that the respondent stated that he had been persuaded by the Chief Minister and the Labour Minister not to go on hunger strike and had been assured that they would certainly make some decision about the demand of the Union on 11-12-76. The respondent declared that on this assurance he had postponed the hunger strike and if no decision could be arrived at on 11-12-76 they would chalk out some other programme. The witness said that he had no record of the other speeches that the respondent may have delivered on some other dates.
6. The learned counsel submits that the prohibitory order issued by this Commission on 274 -76 was violated by the respondent by having resort to hunger strike and by delivering speeches. I have referred to the speech of the respondent, recorded by the Head Constable on 6.12-76 and I find nothing coercive and culpable in this speech. Reference was also made by the learned counsel to the extracts of the newspapers filed alongwith the complaint. The extracts are not per se evidence of the truth of what is stated therein but at their face value it cannot be said that they fall within the mischief of unfair labour practice. All that was stated therein, was that in case of the failure of negotiations and in case of failure of Government to conduct an enquiry into the alleged embezzlement by the Management tee respondent would resort to hunger strike. There is no exhortation to the workers to commit any unfair labour practice.
7. The learned counsel's next submission is that the very act that the respondent proceeded on hunger strike, was clearly intended to pressurise the Management and therefore, he should be considered to have committed an unfair labour practice. I do not agree with this. The words "intimidation, coercion, pressure, threat and confinement" used in clause (d) of subsection (1) of section 16 indicate use of objective force or pressure tactics A which may have some physical impact on the employer. According to Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Third Edition, the word "pressure" means "action or fact of pressing, the fact or condition of being pressed, compression squeesing, crushing." The act of going on hunger strike is an act of selfafflication and self- imposition. It may be regarded by some people as immoral pressure but it is not culpabe in the legal sense and is not covered by the word "pressure" used in section 16(1) (d) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
8. The pressure in order to be culpable has to be brought on the employer by show of physical force or by some other method which subjects the employer to physical restraint or a process of compression or compulsion. Hunger strike is a sort of demonstration or protest for which a person who goes on hunger strike suffers himself to the pangs of hunger. It is different that it may result in moral pressure on certain persons but there may be others who may remain quite impervious to this demonstration of self suffering. It is therefore, not acknowledged as universal method of putting pressure on an adversary in the punitive sense.
9. I, therefore, find that the complainant has not been able to prove that the respondent has committed any unfair labour practice by going on hunger strike or has violated in any way the prohibitory order issued by the Commission. The complaint is, therefore, dismissed at the preliminary stage. Complaint dismissed.