1976 PLP 367 (PLC)

Muhammad Afzal Khan Bangesh for Respondent. On 27th December 1974, Muhammad Amin, Proprietor, Taj Silk Mills, Rahimabad, Mingora (Swat) filed a complaint with the Commission under section 16/53 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 against the 5 accused whose names are noted above. It was alleged therein that the workers of Taj Silk Mills have formed a Union under the name and style of Taj Silk Mills Mazdoor Union which is affiliated to the Mazdoor Rabita Committee of which Shah Jehan Khan (accused No. 1) is the President. It was also mentioned therein that on 21st December 1974 the accused demand payment of 14 days annual unavailed earned leave and on the refusal by the Manager, Muhammad Yaqoob they locked the gate of the Factory and thereafter confined him (Muhammad Yaqoob Manager) and Ahmad Bashir Supervisor in a room. Lastly it was stated that they were rescued through the efforts of the Police. However, the workers commenced strike which was continuing.

2. On the same day (27-12-1974) the preliminary statement of the complainant was recorded. Notices were issued to the accused to appear before the Commission to rebut the allegation made by the complainant. A prohibitory order was also issued to the accused to call off the strike and to behave properly. On 3rd February 197 charge under section 16(l)(d) & (e) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was framed against the accused to which they pleaded not guilty.

3. At the trial, the case of the prosecution as detailed above was supported by Muhammad Amin, Proprietor of Taj Silk Mills (P. W. 1) and his Manager Muhammad Yaqoob (P. W. 2). It appears that Muhammad Amin (P. W. 1) was not present at the Factory when the workers are said to have made the demand of wages for 14 days annual unavailed earned leave and on the refusal of the Manager, they confined him and the Supervisor in the room. Muhammad Amin (P. W. 1) deposed that the information with regard to the strike and confinement of his Manager and Supervisor was conveyed to hire at about 12.00 noon, the same day (21-12-1974) by the Manager (Muhammad Yaqoob) through a chit and on that basis he informed the Police who reached the spot and rescued the Manager and the Supervisor by opening the lock He admitted that later many workers assembled outside the Factory and tried to gherao the Police as a result of which reinforcement was called and the workers were dispersed when tae Police made Lathi Charge. He admitted that the Assistant Commissioner also reached the site.

4. The most important witness in this case it, Muhammad Yaqoob (P. W. 2) Manager of the Factory. His statement is short and simple. He stated that he reached the Factory at 8-07 a.m. and thereafter he was sitting in his office room alongwith Ahmad Bashir Supervisor and was busy in checking the accounts. He added that at about 10-30 a.m. Ayub Khan (accused No. 2), Muhammad Riaz (accused No. 3), Khan Muhammad (accused No. 4) and Mumtaz (accused No. 5) entered his room and asked him to pay wages for 14 days annual unavailed earned leave to which he did not agree. At this, they snatched the keys from the chowkidar and locked the main gate from inside. They also confined him (Muhammad Yaqoob) and Ahmad Bashar Supervisor in the room which was also locked by them from outside. Later, the Police arrived at 1-00 p.m. and got them rescued by opening the lock. He further deposed that the workers of the other Factories assembled outside the main gate and treed to gherao the Police who sent a constable to bring the Assistant Commissioner and reinforcement. He admitted that Shah Jehan Khan (accused No. 1) was accompanying the Assistant Commissioner. Finally, he deposed that since 21st Decem ber 1974 there was strike in the Mills. He denied that he had sent any chit to anybody.

5. Muhammad Rahim, Station House Officer, P. S. Mingora appeared as P. W.

3. His statement is to the effect that on being informed that there was disturbance in the Factory he reached the site and found that the Manager and the Supervisor had been confined in a room which was locked from outside. Ayub Khan (accused No. 2) made over the key of the room and it was then that he was able to rescue them from confine ment. He further stated that many workers from outside assembled at the main gate and that, therefore, he managed to inform the Assistant Com missioner about the situation. At abut 1-30 p.m. the Assistant Commissioner reached there and he was accompanied by Shah Jehan Khan (accused No. 1). He added that the workers of other Factories were not allowing them (Police) to go out of the Factory. They were made to disperse by Larhi Charge. He denied that Muhammad Amin (P. W. 1) had met him on the way.

6. After the close of the prosecution case, the accused when examined under stand 342, Cr. P. C. denied the allegations. However, in the interest of justice I thought it expedient to summon Wazir Muhammad chowkllar, Sh. Abdul Rahim Assistant Director Labour Welfare, Mingora and Syed Badshah, Head Constable as C. W. 1, C. W. 2, and C. W. 3 respectively. Wazir Muhammad Chowkidar gave a fantastic account of the incident. He admitted that he saw Ayub Khan (accused No. 2) entering Manager's office at 8-00 a m. on 21st December 1974 but he could not divulge the contents of the tabs. He added that it was Muhammad Amin Proprietor who confined the Manager (Muhammad Yaqoob) and Supervisor (Ahmad Bashar) inside the office room and locked the door from inside and left. He further stated that an hour later he appeared in the Factory with S. H. O. and some Police constables. He admitted that after Assistant Commissioner had reached there, Shah Jehan Khan (accused No. 1) also arrived at the spot. During the cross-examination by the counsel for the complainant, he admitted that the workers were making demands for payment of wages with retard to 14 days annual unavailed earned leave which the manager refused to accede.

7. Sh. Abdul Rahim, Assistant Director Labour Welfare (C. W. 2) simply stated that Shah Jehan Khan (accused No. 1) is the Legal Advisor of the Mazdoor Rabita Committee which is not a registered body. He admitted that re had learned about the stripe but he did not visit the Factory. Lastly, he stated that 37 Silk Factories had been closed since 21st December 1974 because the demands of the workers had u t been accepted.

8. Syed Badshah, Head Constable (C. W. 3), deposed that he and the S. H. O. reached the gate and found it locked from inside and as such they got access to the premises of the Factory by scaling over the wall. He added that some one of the workers gave them key with which the lock of the room where Manager and Supervisor had been confined, was opened. He further stated that he again scaled over the wall from back side to inform the Assistant Commissioner because many workers from outside had assembled at the gate of the Mills and were misbehaving. The Assistant Commissioner reached there and ordered Lath! Charge. Regarding Shah Jehan Khan he stated that he always leads processions and makes speeches inciting the workers not to call off the strike. The accused, however, did not produce evidence in defence.

9. Discussion.-The question for determination is whether or not the pro secution has succeeded in bringing home the guilt to the accused. As already stated, Muhammad Amin (P. W. 1) is not an eye-witness. The only ocular evidence was furnished by Muhammad Yaqoob (P. W. 2). The prosecution, however, failed to produce Ahmad Bashar, Supervisor who is said to have been confined in the room alongwith the Manager. The statement of Muhammad Yaqoob Manager (P. W. 2) to the effect that all the accused except Shah Jehan (accused No. 1) were responsible for confinement lacks corroboration. His statement has been corroborated to the extent that he and Supervisor were confined in a room which was locked from outside and that the S. H. O. after securing key from Ayub Khan (accused No. 2) opened it and set them free. The version of Muhammad Yaqoob (P. W. 2) to the effect that in the morning Ayub Khan (accused No. 2) had entered his room has been supported by Wazir Muhammad chowkidar (C. W. 1). During the cross- examination, Wazir Muhammad (C. W. 1) admitted that the workers were making demand for payment with regard to wages for 14 days annual unavailed earned leave and that the Manager had refused to accede to their demand. Apart from this, no evidence has been produced to show that Shah Jehan Khan (accused No. 1) was present from the beginning to the end and that it was at his incitement that the main gate was closed from inside or that Manager and Supervisor were confined. On the other hand, the evidence shows that he (Shah Jehan Khan) came either with the Assistant Commissioner or a short while after his (A. C.) arrival. It is also pertinent to note that Muhammad Yaqoob (P. W. 2) nowhere stated that Shah Jehan Khan was present in the Factory. He also did not depose that at the time when he was confined Shah Jehan Khan had reached the Factory. I, accordingly, have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against Shah Jehan Khan (accused No. 1).

10. As already stated the S. H. O. has stated that it was Ayub Khan (accused No. 2) who made over the key of the lock of the room where Manage and Supervisor had been confined and as such he was able to set them free. The evidence of Wazir Muhammad chowkidar (C. W. 1) to the effect that he saw Ayub Khan (accused No. 2) in the morning with the Manager lends A countenance to the view that it was he who had made the demand for the wages of 14 days annual unavailed earned leave and later on the refusal of the Manager, locked him from outside. No evidence has been produced against the other 3 accused namely Muhammad Riaz, Khan Muhammad and Mumtaz. I, accordingly, hold only Ayub Khan (accused No. 2) individually liable for having contravened the provisions of section 16(1)(d) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. As such, I convict him (Ayub Khan) under section 53 of the said Ordinance, and sentence him to six months' R. I. with a fine of Rs. 250 (Rs. two hundred and fifty only); in default of payment of fine, further R. I. for three months. Rest of the accused namely Shah Jehan Khan, Muhammad Riaz, Khan Muhammad and Mumtaz are acquitted of the charge.

11. Since Ayub Khan is the office-bearer of the Union, I direct that he shall cease to hold the office of the Trade Union and is disqualified from holding any office in any Trade Union during the term immediately following the term in which he so ceases to hold office.

12. Before I part with this case, I may mention that the statement of Muhammad Amin (P. W. 1) complainant has not inspired confidence. He deposed that he was informed of the incident through a chit by the Manager. The Manager (Muhammad Yaqoob), however, denied having scribed the chit. He further stated that it was Shah Jehan Khan who was entirely responsible for the incident. The evidence, however, shows that he was not present at the spot. Lastly, be deposed that he himself had informed the Police and accompanied the S. H. O. to the Factory. This version has also been denied by the S. H. O., I might have issued notice to him (Muhammad Amin, complainant) for having made baseless statement, but I refrain from doing so. I, however, warn him to be careful in future.