Petitioner No,1 (Crescent Workers Union) is a registered trade union in the Crescent Textile Mills.
Petitioners Nos.2 to 15 are the members/office-bearers of the said union. Petitioners are the workers by virtue of their duties. Due to their trade union activities they have been victimized by the respondents in order to hamper with their trade union activities.
2. Dispute arose regarding holding of referendum between the union of the petitioner and another union of respondents Establishment started in the years 1995. When the matter brought to the notice of Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, passed the order on 14-12-1996 to hold the elections under the supervision of Registrar of Trade Unions Faisalabad. Petitioners Nos.2 to 15 in order to participate in the election of petitioner No,1 filed nomination papers for taking parts in the elections against various offices of the union. During the elections proceedings on 15-1-1997 respondents through their agent got the stay order regarding election proceedings and immediately started victimization of the petitioners Nos.2 to 15 passed the transfer order of the petitioner from one department to another department. So, the petition was moved regarding atrocities of the respondents before this Commission. Temporary injunction was passed in favor of the petitioners against the respondents, then respondents manufactured a device and got stay order against the said election from the Civil Court and started pressurising the petitioners to withdraw their names from the panel of the candidates. They were compelled to favor Imdad Awan Group so that he may be elected unopposed. The petitioners did not surrender before the respondents. When the stay order from the Civil Court was got vacated on 17-2-1997 petition was moved before the RTU on 18-2-1997 for holding of elections as per order of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal. On 23-2- 1997 RTU called a meeting for holding of elections. Petitioners filed their statement before the Registrar of Trade Unions and pointed out that they were compelled by the respondents to withdraw their candidature from the election. Resultantly 27-2-1997 was fixed for holding the elections. On 23-2-1997 after the duty hours,, when petitioners leave the mills premises their cards were not returned to them. On 24-2-1997 petitioners came to perform duties they were not allowed to enter in the mills premises. The petitioners reported the highhandedness of the respondents to the Joint Director Labour who appoint the Inquiry Officer, who after thorough inquiry submitted that report regarding the highhandedness of the respondents. The respondents with the connivance of rival group of the petitioners again got the stay order regarding the elections which were to be held on 27-2-1997 from the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal on 25-2-1997. When the reality was brought to the notice of PLAT then respondents were restrained to further victimize the petitioners.
On this respondents became hostile against the petitioners. Outrightly they issued show-cause notices to the petitioners regarding their absence from duty from 16-2-1997 to 26-2-1997, whereas they were not allowed to enter into the mill premises even then they were succeeded to mark their presence but the respondents after committing forgery has crossed upon the register where the petitioners were shown present. The petitioners submitted the reply to the show-cause notices issued to them and repudiated the allegations of absence of duty and this fact was also brought to the notice of Chairman, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal. Report was summoned from the Joint Director Labour on 7-3-1997. With the indulgence of the Chairman, PLAT again order was passed to hold the elections. During the inquiry of the Labour Department the respondents manufactured a fabricated resignation of the petitioners which was the height of highhandedness of the respondents. Petitioners lodged the complaint before the police against the respondents for making forged and bogus resignations on behalf of the respondents with forged signatures.
Resultantly petitioners were kicked out of service on the pretext of forged and fabricated resignations of the petitioners, which is a clear case of victimization due to trade union activities of the petitioners, hence this petition.
3. The petition was contested with tooth and nail. Preliminary objection was raised that the services of the petitioners were terminated on 19-3-1997 when their resignations were accepted so this Commission had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties. On facts assertions of the petitioners were refuted. It was clarified that two rival groups of the union were fighting against others. The establishment (respondents) was having no concern with their litigation. In fact petitioners remained absent from duty for more than 10 days. They were proceeded against in accordance with law. It is not a case of unfair labour practice. The petitioners deserve no relief.
4. My learned predecessor after going through the record, and hearing the arguments of both sides accepted the petition vide order dated 25-5-1998. The said order was assailed before the Full Bench of this Commission.
' Resultantly appeal was accepted and case was remanded back with the directions that matter should be resolved after recording evidence of both the parties.
5. Parties were asked to produce evidence. M. Nawaz G.S., M. Ghafoor Publicity Secretary, Mukadas Ali, Joint Secretary, Imtiaz Hussain Member Executive Body, Abdul Shakoor Vice-President, Nasrullah Khan, Senior Vice-President, M. Lilac, Member Executive Body, M. Sabir Member Executive, Mehmood, Member Executive Body, M. Shafique, Member Executive Body, Maqsood Ahmed, General Secretary, Tariveer. Ahmed Member Executive Body, M. Asghar, Office Secretary tiled affidavits Exh.P/1 to Exh.P/13 respectively. They have supported the contents of the petition in its entirety. They were subjected to cross-examination. M. Nawaz has admitted that he was not issued any service card.
Only appointment letter was issued to him. He is having no documentary evidence regarding affiliation with the trade union. He asserted that management has victimized him because he is resisted against the desires to support Haji Munir Group. He specifically denied that resignation was submitted by him. It was suggested that during the years 1994 and 1996 settlement had been arrived at between the management and his signatures are there on the said settlement at that time he was supporter of Imdad Await Group on the same grounds M. Ghafoor, Mukadas Ahmed, Nasrullah Khan, M. Asghar, Tanveer Ahmed, M. Sabir, Khalid Mehmood and M. Shafique were cross- examined, and they adhered to the contents of the affidavit. M. Yunis, Imtiaz Hussain and Maqsood Ahmed have admitted that neither petition nor Vakalatnama bears their signatures. Similarly is the case of Abdul Shakoor, during the cross-examination has denied the suggestion that Exh.R/1/A bears his signatures. He admitted that petition and Vakalatnama did not bears his thumb- impression.
6. Statement of Haji Munir, President of Crescent Workers' Union was recorded. He has tendered all the documents which they relied upon in the main petition. He has verified the contents of the petition in its entirety. He was cross-examined. Prior to vote of no-confidence he was serving abroad in Saudi Arabia. He denied, that no demand notice was served upon the respondents. He denied that management was not supporting in particular group of the union. He admitted that after settlement of dispute in between the union the election took place in May, 2000. He admitted that he had been the President of Crescent Workers' Union. The detail of the litigation which has been mentioned above was also put to this witness during the cross-examination which is otherwise an admitted fact.
7. From the documents Mark P/1 to P/17 it has become crystal clear that two rival groups were at dagger drawn. Their litigations were pending. One group was trying to avoid the elections and they were getting stay I orders. This is also an admitted fact that the petitioners were the active members/trade unionist and they were taking part in the trade union activities and were the office-bearers of the union and they have filed nomination papers to contest the elections which was the bone of contention between the two rival groups one group was headed by Imdad Awan and other group in which petitioners were affiliated was headed by Haji Munir Group. This is also an admitted fact that litigation was pending before the Labour Court as well as Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal when the coercive measures were adopted against the petitioners. They were not allowed to enter into the factory premises on 24-2-1997. They were marked absent from 16-2- 1997 to 25-2-1997 then show-cause notices were issued to them. Whereas they were present on their duties. When the administration realised that they will not be succeeded to kick out the petitioners on the pretext of their absence from duty they manufactured a device of preparing forged resignations of the petitioners and the same were accepted and the petitioners were thrown out of their services. The matter was reported by the petitioners to the police for the registration of case against the management for preparation of their forged resignations. During the inquiry after getting the specimen signatures of the petitioners, the same were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison with their resignation on the so-called resignations. After thorough probe the report was submitted that the signatures on the so-called resignations do not bear identical correct erists with the previously written wright only signatures and the said documents is Mark P/29. As the petitioners having the support of previous litigation in the Civil Court, Labour Court, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal as well as before the High Court, so the plea adopted by the petitioners could not be considered as afterthought because each step has been supported by the documentary evidence which get the presumption of truth. Even otherwise the said litigation is an admitted fact. So, the report in this background of the litigation and specific denial of the petitioners regarding resignations the report of Forensic Science Laboratory has got the significance which supported the contentions of the petitioners. So, the petitioners were succeeded to establish this fact that they have not submitted resignations which were forged only to kick them out from the service.
8. As far as the unfair labour practice is concerned, in my humble view keeping in view the above facts it is a worst example of victimization of the petitioners only because of their trade union activities by the respondents because they were having sympathies with their rival group of the petitioners.
9. The petitioners were victimized only because of their trade union activities so it the fit case which should have been adjudicated upon by this Commission in view of the background discussed above. The preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents regarding the jurisdiction of this Commission is having no legal significant which is hereby turned down.
10. On behalf of the respondents, Mr. Talib Hussain submitted affidavit in support of the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, alongwith show-cause notices issued to the petitioners. He was cross-examined. He admitted that the documents Mark-A to H do not bear his signatures which relates to Factory Manager who had left the service. He admitted that Punjab.
Labour Appellate Tribunal has directed on 14-12-1996 for holding of referendum on 15-1-1997. It was also ordered to hold referendum on 7-2-1997. He has not refuted the suggestion that the petitioners have filed nomination papers to participate in election which has to be held on 15-1- 1997. He admitted that on 15-1-1997 during election proceedings Imdad Awan Group got stay order from Civil Judge to withhold the election proceedings. He has also not denied their fact that Factory Manager compelled the petitioners Nos.2 to 15 to withdraw from the elections, and to support Imdad Awan Group. He has also not denied this fact that after 15-1-1997 Factory Manager was ordered to transfer the petitioners at different places. This witness is not aware of the previous litigation because he has shown ignorance regarding all the material facts which are otherwise admitted on the record. He admitted that Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal had directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioners on their duties vide order dated 27-3-1997. He admitted that petitioners have got registered a criminal case against the administration for preparing forged resignations in April, 1998. He admitted that after thorough inquiry police has submitted the challan against Factory Manager and General Manager in the Court for preparing the forged resignations.
11. In the light of above admissions there remains no room to think that petitioners were not victimized by the respondents only because of their trade union activities. Especially when police has also arrived to the conclusion that after preparing forged resignations petitioners were kicked out of their services illegally.
12. Keeping at juxtaposition, evidence of both the parties, I remain in no manner of doubt while holding that petitioners are succeeded to establish their claim. They were illegally thrown out of their services only because of their trade union activities. Resultantly I direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioners in their services with 50 per cent. Back benefits. The establishment is further directed to remain careful in future to perpetuate unfair labour practice upon the employees in such a brutal and inhuman manner. Petition stands accepted. File be consigned to the. Record Room after its completion.