1982 PLP 793 (PLC(CS))

Choudhry M. Maarif for Applicant. Shakeel Lari for Respondent. Date of hearing: 18th October, 1981. This is an application under subsection (5) of section 38,

1. R. O., praying for action to be taken against the respondent, Syed Raunaq Raza, for committing Contempt of Court. The basis for the contempt application is the following statement made by Mr. Shakeel Lari the learned counsel for Syed Raunaq Raza, which is incorporated' in the judgment of this Tribunal, given on 20th July, 1980. "As regards the last claim of the appellant union, namely the differ ence of bonus actually admissible to workmen under 1975 settlement for the years 1975 and 1976, and the bonus that was actually received by them. Mr. Lari made a statement on behalf of the respondent hotel that the hotel management has paid bonus to its employees for the years 1975 and 1976 according to the settlement of 1975, but if there is any employee who has not been paid bonus according to that settlement, the hotel would be prepared to pay him the difference or otherwise as according to the settlement of 1975, and any such aggrieved workman could directly go to the hotel for the payment of any portion of the bonus that may still be due to him under the 1975 settlement. This statement/offer settles the dispute, if any, on this issue."

2. It is contended by Mr. Choudhry M. Maarif, the learned representative for the applicant that the said statement is false in that the respondent, Syed Raunaq Raza, has not paid and in fact has no intention to pay the bonus to the workmen employed by him for the years 1975 and 1976, in accordance with the settlement, arrived at in 1975. According to that settlement, for each year, every workman was entitled to bonus equivalent to wages for 45 days. On the other hand, Mr. Shakeel Lari for respondent, Syed Raunaq Raza, has reiterated that every workman has been paid bonus in accordance with the settlement of 1975:

3. Since the controversy between the parties could only be resolved by examining evidence on the issue whether any workman had not been paid bonus in accordance with the settlement of 1975, Mr. Choudhry Maarif was asked to produce evidence in support of his allegation. He has examined 2 witnesses, by name, Siraj Ahmed and Sheeda alias Abdul Qader. He had also undertaken to produce other witnesses in support of his allegation but has submitted an application to the effect as the witnesses are under the control of respondent. Syed Raunaq Raza, it is not possible for him either to pursuade them to attend or give evidence in support of his case. Now so far as witness Sheeda is concerned, who has been employed in Hostallarie de France under Syed Raunaq Raza since several years, he has not supported the case of the applicant and on the contrary stated that he .bad been paid his dues every year in accordance with the settlement arrived at between the management and the workman. The respondent, Syed, Raunaq Raza has also filed the payment of bonus sheets for the years 1975 and 1916. These sheets not only contain the names of the workmen to whom bonus has been paid but they also have the signatures of the workmen in token of receipt of payment. The signatures on the payment list for the year 1976 ore on Revenue stamps. Witness Sheeda was shown the entries in the 2 lists of payments, being entry No. 49 in the list for the year 1975 and entry No. 47 in the list for the year. 15176, and admitted that the signatures thereon are his. His evidence was sought to be assailed by Mr. Choudhry M. Maarif on the ground that he was an employee of and consequently under the control of Syed Raunaq Raza. Although the witness may have been an old employee of the respondent that would not be a sufficient reason for disbelieving him, particularly when he was a witness of the applicant. 1 had occasion to carefully notice his demeanour while he was in the witness box and it appeared to me that he was giving truthful evidence.

4. The other witness, Siraj Ahmed, has however, stated that he has not been paid his bonus claim according to, the settlement of 1975. He was shown the entry at serial No. 60 in the list for the year 1975 and the entry at serial No. 60 in the list fair the year 1976, but denied that the signatures against the said entries are his. I have compared these signatures with the signatures of the witness taken in Court as also the signatures of the witness on his Identity Card and find) that all these signatures differ. However, there is considerable similarity between the signatures against serial No. 60 in the list for the. year 1975, and the signatures of the witness on his Identity Car. It was perhaps because of this similarity that the witness had drat tied that the signatures do his Identity Card was his but later on bad admitted that the signatures was his. It appears to me that in the course of years the signatures of the witness has been altering and consequently his present signatures differ from the signatures made by him in the lists for the years 1975 and 1976 as also‑ on his Identity Card, which was made in October, 1976, In any case, even if there is some doubt on the point whether the witness has received his bonus for the years 1975 and 1976 in accor dance with the settlement of 1975, this fact by itself would not property form the basis of proceedings for contempt against the respondent. The appropriate course would be for the witness if he has a legal claim 'A against the Hostallarie de France or the respondent, Syed Raunaq Raza; to take appropriate legal proceedings for the recovery of his dues.

5. Since no case is made out for taking of contempt proceedings against the respondent, I would dismiss this application.