1977 PLP 515 (PLC)

‑‑ S. 16(1)(d)‑Unfair labour practices‑No allegation made by pro secution with regard to signing of memorandum of settlement under pressure and coercion‑No case under S. 16(1)(d), held, made out. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑

‑‑ S. 22‑C‑Unfair labour practices‑Hunger strike, even if amounting to pressurising of employers for acceptance of demands of Workers -Does not constitute offence of unfair labour practice‑Respondents, held, could not be liable under S. 22‑C. Sadiq Muhammad Warraich for the Accused. The present proceedings, under section 22‑C of the I. R. O., are off‑shoot of a complaint filed before the Commission on 25‑4‑1974, by one Asad Ali Khawja, Secretary, Rachna Textile Mills Limited, Gujar Khan, alleging offences of unfair labour practice against the above‑named respondents and three other workers of the Mills. It was said that the said persons had tried to pressurise the Management by illegal means for acceptance of certain demands of the workers of the above‑said Mills, and thus contravened the provisions of section 16(1)(d) of the I. R. O. The complaint was entertained by a Single Bench of this Commission and after recording of preliminary statement of the complainant, process was issued against the accused. They were also simultaneously directed to refrain from doing any wrongful act to avoid occurrence of unfair labour practice. On 18‑5‑1974, information was supplied by the complainant, that the above‑named respondents had commenced hunger strike from 9th May, 1974, to intimidate and coerce the Management for acceptance of the demand earlier put forward by the workers, in spite of the prohibitory orders issued by the Commission. The said respon dents also failed to appear before the Bench on the said date. On the basis of this information the Single Bench proceeded against the rest of the co-accused cited in the main complaint and convicted them under section 22‑C of the I. R. O., for disobeying the directions earlier issued by the Commission and sentenced each one of them to simple imprisonment for three months together with a fine of Rs. 500 and in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment for one month. Separate notices were also ordered to be issued against the above‑mentioned respondents. The Single Bench thereafter proceeded with the trial of all the accused in the main case and after the prosecution had concluded its evidence, the case was transferred to my file. After examining the witnesses produced by the accused in their defence, I found them (the accused) not guilty of the offence charged, and acquitted them. The main ground taken into consideration by me was that sec tion 16(1)(d) of the I. R. O. as it then was at the relevant time, contemplated pressurising and coercion of the employer with the object of compelling him to sign a "memorandum of settlement" with the workers, and as no such allegation had been made by the prosecution with regard to the signing of 'memorandum of settlement" no case under section 16(1)(d) had been made out.

2. Coming to the present proceedings, it came to light, that though notice under section 22‑C was ordered to be issued against the respondents, no such notice had in fact been issued, therefore, on 29‑1‑1976, after record ing the statement of the complainant, I ordered issuance of show‑cause notice under section 22‑C against the above‑named respondents.

3. In their reply, they have taken up a plea that as mere acts of pressurization without compelling the employer to sign a memorandum of settlement did not constitute unfair labour practice at the relevant time, which ultimately resulted in the acquittal of the accused in the main case, the present respondents could not be said to have flouted the order dated 25‑4‑74, passed by the Single Bench of the Commission, as in the said order, the respondents and other co‑accused had only been directed to refrain from doing any wrongful act to avoid occurrence of unfair labour practice. As going on hunger strike, even if it amounted to pressurization of the employee for acceptance of demands of the workers, did not then constitute an offence of unfair labour practice, the respondents could not be held liable under section 22‑C of the I. R. O., as the order of the Commission in that case, had not in fact been flouted.

4. Having given the matter my best consideration, I find myself in complete agreement with the plea put forward by the respondents: and in the result, vacate the show‑cause notice earlier given by me to the respondents The respondents thus stand discharged.