1. ' The complainant Javed Iqbal filed an application under section 15 read with section 22 (a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 read with rule 32 of the National Industrial Relations Commission Regulations before the National Industrial Relations Commission on 7-34975. This complaint was later on assigned to this Court alongwith another complaint by order dated 30- 41975 for final disposal.
2. ' After receipt of this complaint from N. I. R. C., preliminary enquiry was held and finally this case was registered on 11-6-75 and process was issued against the accused.
3. ' In support of its case, the complainant examined himself, Abdul Runk, Akhtar Hussain and Shah Zeman and produced a number of documents. He closed his side on 29-7-1975. Thereafter the accused was examined under section 342, Cr. P. C. On 9.9-1975 but the accused professed his innocence. In his further statement, he stated that in fact the complainant has been charge- sheeted on account of his illegal demands contained in letters dated 31-1.1975 and 392-1975 and it was a clear case of misconduct. He was accordingly charged under section 53 (1) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 on 26-9-1975, after hearing the learned counsel of both the parties. He also entered into his defence and examined Sadaqat Hussain and Akbar Wazir and closed his side on 14-10-1975. The Advocates of the parties hereto were then heard at length.
4. ' The point for determination in this case is as to whether the accused has committed unfair labour practice in dismissing the complainant on the basis of letters written by him to the Management.
5. ' The complainant's case is quite simple in that he has alleged that ho was dismissed by the accused from service on 27-2-1975 due to the reasons that he had participated in the genuine activities of a Registered Trade Union. Prior to this application, he had also filed an application on 24-2-1975 before the Commission in which he had alleged that the accused was aimed at harming him only because of his Trade Union activities and that he had written certain letters to the Management but on the basis of those letters, he was charge-sheeted by the accused and further that he apprehended his dismissal. This application was summarily dismissed by the Hon'ble Commission on the simple ground that it was premature.
6. ' The complainant himself is the most important witness in this case. He has given quite a detailed evidence and he brought a number of things which are admittedly in addition to what he has alleged in his two applications referred to above. In his deposition, he has stated that he was appointed as a Clerk in Norwich Insurance Company in 1968. In 1972, he formed a Union by name of Norwich Union Fire Insane Society Ltd. Employees Union of which he, P. W. Shah Zamar, P. W. Abdul Razzak and P. W. Akhtar Hussain were the promoters. He was elected as its President and continued as such till he left the said Union. When he formed this Union, the accused who was then Assistant Manager called the entire Managing Committee of that Union and told them that by forming this Union, they had stabbed the Company into the back. He also stated that whenever that Union raised demand, this accused administered threats to the extent of arrests. In early 1974, this accused became full-fiedged Manager and then started giving inducements to the Members of the Managing Committee with the result that majority of the Managing Committee members became inclined towards the Management. Looking at this situation, he alongwith P. W. Shah Zaman and P. W. Akhtar Hussain resigned from their respective posts finding that the Union was acting prejudicial to the interest of the workers. A number of workers then approached them to get rid of this Union and so he formed the present Norwich Union Pakistan Staff Association as an industry wise Trade Union. It was registered on 14-1-1975 which fact was duly notified to the Management on 21-1-1975. After this intimation, the accused called him and persuaded him to leave this Association with this inducement that he would be given promotion otherwise would suffer consequence.. On behalf of the Association, the Management was asked to deduct subscription from the members of the Association vide letter dated 27-1-75 but this request was turned down. Three more letters were then addressed to the Management by him ride Exts. P-4, P-5 and P-6 but instead of redressing genuine grievances the accused charge-sheeted him and after necessary departmental enquiry, he was dismissed from service on 27-2-1975. On the basis of these letters, the Management filed a criminal complaint of unfair labour practice before the N. I. R.
7. C. But the same was dismissed vide Exh. F-14. This witness has been cross-examined quite at length by Mr. Saeed Advocate for the accused. From the evidence of the complainant, we have to see as to whether he has made out any case of unfair labour practice. It is evident that in his complaint, which is the subject-matter of this case, he has simply stated that he was charge- sheeted on account of his letters sent by him to the Management in the capacity of the President of the Association and ultimately he was dismissed and that this dismissal was due to his Trade Union activities. In his evidence in Court, he has nowhere stated in the examination-in-chief, which is a quite detailed one, that his dismissal was on account of his Trade Union activities. He has, however, stated that the accused was against him since the formation of the first Union by him in 1972 and that even after the formation of the present Association, he was called by the accused and pursuaded him to leave the Staff Association. These allegations have nowhere been mentioned in the complaint itself nor he stated so before the N. I. R. C. During preliminary proceedings. The other prosecution witnesses Abdul Rana, Shah Zaman and Akhtar Hussain have also not so stated in their respective statements recorded under section 202, Cr. P. C. No doubt these witnesses have stated in these statements that soon after the formation of the Employees'
8. Union, accused started harassing them and pursuaded them to leave the Union, but in their evidence in Court, they have clearly admitted that during their entire service neither they were in any way harassed by the Management or the accused nor any discrimination worth the name was made with them. In view of this sort of evidence brought on record, it can only be said that the complainant and his witnesses have improved their case just to suit their requirements.
9. ' In any case, let us see whether this allegation of the complainant made for the first time in evidence in Court stands proved. This complainant had admitted that he never filed any complaint against the alleged harassing acts of the Management nor he made these allegations either in this complaint or in his statement recorded during preliminary enquiry. He also admitted that he was neither charge-sheeted nor subjected to any punishment from January 1972 to January 1975 nor any office-bearer was subjected to any punishment during this entire period. He also admitted that as President of the Employees' Union, he concluded two settlements with the Management and these settlements were signed by the accused on behalf of the Manage meat. He also admitted that a number of benefits were given by the Management to the workers through his Union and that no discrimination was over made against him or any other office-bearer in the matter of benefits. It is also admitted by him that three increments were granted to him in 1974 and that on his transfer from Accounts Department to Fire Department, he was properly compensated in 1974 so that he should not suffer any loss by way of transfer. He also specifically admitted that he was not victimized by the Management till his dismissal. He has also stated that except his dismissal, he does not allege any other victimization due to his Trade Union activities. The allegation of the complainant, as stated hereinabove, is that he has been dismissed due to his Trade Union activities. I have already observed that he has not so pleaded in his examination-in- chief. Even in regard to his other sweeping and wild allegations in regard to harassment by the accused, when he first formed the Employees' Union, he has as stated herein above, clearly admitted that he was neither victimized nor harassed in any manner by the Management or the Accused till his dismissal and that a number of benefits as well as special increments were granted to him from time to time and further that whenever his Union raised demands, the Management granted handsome benefits to the workers. This entire evidence of the complainant clearly shows that the Management or the accused never objected to the Trade Union activities of the complainant, and, on the contrary, he accommodated the Union and accepted the demands to the entire satisfaction of the workers. It is not understood as to how only at the time of the dismissal, the complainant had come out with this plea that his dismissal is on account of his healthy Trade Union activities.
10. ' Whatever the position or the affect of the letters written by the complainant to the Management may be, but I have to see as to whether the dismissal is on account of the Trade Union activities of the complainant in order to bring home the guilt of the accused under section 15 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 read with section 53 (1) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. It is crystal clear that this very Complainant is the only person who started Union activities in this company and who remained all-in-all of this Union till 1914 but during the entire period, he had not complained in any manner against the Management or the accused, as is evident from the admitted position, that he never made such complaint either to the Management or to any Authority.
11. ' I would now turn to the demands raised by the complainant, may be in the capacity of the President of the Union, and which are the main cause of the complaint. One of the demands is that the Management should cease recognizing Employees' Union as Collective Bargaining Agent and stop negotiating with it. On the contrary, it should accept Staff Association as the true Union and should negotiate with it. In this behalf, I would bay here that according to section 22 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, no Registered Trade Union could be recognized by the Management for the purpose of negotiations unless it is certified as C. B. A. By the competent authority. Under section 52 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, any Collective Bargaining Agent already functioning as such would continue to act as such till such time its status is changed due to formation of other Union. Admittedly the complainant's Association has never been certified as Collective Bargaining Agent and that Employees' Union was a recognized C. B. A. The Management was, therefore, quite justified in refusing to accept this unwarranted demand of the complainant.
12. The second demand raised' by the complainant is that subscription of the members should be deducted towards check-off. Section 23 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 does not support this demand of the complainant's Association as the check-off is only for C. B. A. However, if any worker wants that his subscription may not be deducted for a particular Union, the Management would certainly stop the same. Admittedly no such request was ever made by any worker directly to the Management. All the witnesses including complainant have admitted this fact in Court. I may mention hero that during the course of the proceedings, an application was moved on behalf of the Complainant for giving directions to the Management to deduct =bunt of certain workers. It was ordered that the persons interested should individually make such application to the Management and the Management would then act upon it. Admittedly, despite this order, no member of the Association preferred any application to the Management. The demand of the complainant in this behalf was, therefore, quite unjustified.
13. ' The third grievance was that the members of the Association were being pursuaded by the accused to leave the Association and to join the Employees' Union. For this, the complainant had filed another Case No, 74/75. After recording evidence in that complaint I concluded that the charge levelled on behalf of the Staff Association was imaginary and so that complaint was dismissed. This charge is not the subject-matter of the instant complaint but nevertheless since the complainant has himself taken up this charge again in his evidence I would say that he has himself demo fished the same.
14. ' It is alleged by the complainant that the three letters, subject-matter of the charge-sheet, were written by him In the capacity of the President of the Association after the approval of the Managing Committee. He has, however, admitted that this approval was obtained verbally as he could not hold any meeting of the Association right from its formation till date. P. W. Akhtar Hussain has stated that meeting was convened and the same was attended by him, P. W. Shah Zaman and the complainant only as only these three persons formed the Managing Committee. They, however, did not produce minute book of such meeting. The names communicated to the Management vide Exh. P-2 shows the strength of five office-bearers and no member of the Managing Committee. It means that either fake names were communicated to the Management or the other two persons were never consulted. It is strange that since the formation of the Staff Association in October, 1914, no meeting could be held till date. The plea advanced by the witnesses before me is that soon after the formation of Association, they were involved In litigations and so they could not hold any meeting. Admittedly the Management was informed of the registration of the Association for the first time by letter dated 21.1-1975 and at least till charge- sheeting the complainant, no case was filed by either side. I wonder how it can be said that the office-bearers of the Association were involved in litigation by the Management right from the date of its formation. In fact this averment is nothing short of a white lie.
15. ' P. W. Shah Zaman is also said to have been charge-sheeted for writing some letters to the administration and finally his three increments were stopped. Documentary evidence do show that this Shah Zaman had himself apologized from the Management for his acts and he considered his letter to be unfair. He never challenged this action of the Management nor in any way showed his grievance till his deposition in this Court. He has also admitted that no discrimination was ever made with him though he had been a very active member of the Union. Similarly P. W. Akhtar Hussain has frankly admitted that all benefits were granted to him without any discrimination and that he was never subjected to any harassment or punishment at any stage. In fact complainant and P. Ws. Shah Zaman and Akhtar Hussain are the only persons who claim themselves to be the pioneers of Union activities in this Company. They were holding very important positions in the Employees' Union till March 1974 and they alone formed this another Association and again they became all-in-all of the Association. What is the purpose of these persons, it cannot be assertained but it remains unrebutted that they created some situation of confrontation. If the Management was in any way against the Trade Union activities, it could have taken any action in any manner against these office-bearers much before the present incident. On the contrary, it is abundantly clear that the Management had been granting all benefits to the workers through the Union itself. It is pertinently mentioned here that the complainant did not produce any independent witness to substantiate his allegation as he has examined only the interested persons. As such no reliance can be placed on these interested witnesses.
16. ' I would now refer to one letter dated 20-94973 which has been brought on record as Exh. D/12. This letter was addressed to the Secretary General, Pakistan National Federation of Trade Unions, Karachi, by the complainant in the capacity of President of Employees' Union and copy endorsed to Management. In this letter, he has praised the present Management. This letter is very important to find out the real intentions of the complainant. Through this letter, he has shown hatred against the present regime. He has gone to this extent to say that nothing could be achieved "as long as the present regime held swa y". He also instigated to rise against this Government. By the contents of this letter, I would be constrained t note down here that Trade Union activities do not mean that its office bearers should indulge in political activities or to launch any movement for the removal of any lawfully established Government as the Trade Union activities are meant only for the welfare - of the workers. I would not hesitate in observing hero that the complainant in the garb of Union activities has in fact some other motive which he attempted to achieve by this method. I would how this type of letters escaped the notice of the Government and how now the complainant can claim that he has been advancing healthy and genuine Trade Union activities. In this way, it cannot be said that he had been dismissed due to his Trade Union activities and so it is unfair labour practice as he has himself fully exposed regarding his actual intentions.
17. ' The cumulative affect of the above discussion is that the complainant has not only failed to prove its allegation against the accused of unfair labour practice but in my view he has shown false apprehensions just to achieve his hidden objects. I would accordingly dismiss this complaint and acquit the accused.
18. ' During the course of the proceedings, it was pleaded that the dismissal order dated 27-2-1975 be quashed and consequential benefits be allowed. The complainant had also filed application for this relief before the Junior Labour Court but the same was stated by this Court till further orders.
19. Regulation No, 32 of the National Industrial Relations Commission empowers the Commission to grant consequential benefits oven in the proceedings launched under section 53 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Apparently I would have given my verdict in regard to effect of the letters written by the complainant and the legality or otherwise of the dismissal. On looking at this Regulation No, 32, I find that I cannot do so, because consequential benefits could be granted only while awarding punishment under section 53 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. This means that if the very complaint is dismissed and the accused is acquitted, such a relief cannot be granted by this Court while exercising the powers of the Commission. The result would be that the complainant would be within his rights to pursue his case of dismissal before the Junior Labour Court where his application is already pending. The Junior Labour Court would now proceed with that application and dispose of the same on merits without being influenced by any observation of this Court in this order.