1982 PLP 1084 (PLC)

Khalid Karim P. W. 2 was cross-examined by Mr. Zaman Qureshi, Advocate who again remained content with not questioning the witness with regard to the allegations of picketing the Directorate's gate, raising of slogans, puncturing the tyres and the individual roles attributed to each accused. This witness is the Assistant Manager, Administration. He denied that he was making a false statement for having been so tutored by the complainant. He did not submit a written report of the incident to the Management separately. He was questioned with regard to the antecedents of the complainant. The third prosecution witness was Ahmad Hussain, Deputy Manager Administration of Roti Corporation of Pakistan. He had been attending the proceedings before the conciliator. On 30th September, 1979 he alongwith Khalid Karim P.W. 2, proceeded to the Directorate on a Suzuki Van. On arriving there he found the complainant, Cheema, Zafar and Aslam already present there. He found that the car of the complainant and others had been `gheraoed' by the accused. On seeing him and P.W. 2, the complainant and his companions came out of the car. Dirty slogans were raised by the accused to harass the representatives of the management. Tahir Abbas deflated the tyre of Fiat and Jehanzeb that of Suzuki Van. While the conciliation meeting was in progress slogans were being raised outside. On the asking of the Conciliator Tahir Abbas went out and slogans were stopped but later at the instigation of Tahir Abbas slogans raising was resumed which continued even after the management's representatives came out of the office, After making the vehicles in a fit condition to move they came back to their office. In cross-examination this witness deposed that he and Khalid Karim P.W. 3 were authorised by the Management to attend the proceedings. Except on 30th September, 1979 there was no untoward incident. There was no slogan raising at the Head office. No report was lodged with the Police. 30 to 35 persons had gathered outside the Directorate and were standing near the motor cars. The workers were standing at the gate and were raising slogans. The witness reiterated that he had seen Tahir Abbas deflating the tyre of the car and Jehanzeb that of the Van. No separate report was submitted to the Managing Director as he had also signed the report submitted by the complainant. There were two groups in the Union, one headed by Afghani and the other by Tahir Abbas, He denied that the management was favourably disposed towards Afghani group. A suggestion was put to him that slogans as stated by him were not raised and there was no incident on 30th September, 1979 as alleged to which he replied that he stated on oath that such slogans were in fact raised and the incident was correct. Asghar Ali, Driver, was examined as P. W.

4. He joined Roti Corpora tion of Pakistan in September, 1979. He was assigned for duty to the Fiat Car. On 30th September, 1979 he was deputed to take the complai nant to the Labour Office which he in fact did. In addition to the complainant, Cheema and Zafar also accompanied him. The witness was not aware of the names of the above-named persons as he had recently joined and came to know their names later. There were 4 persons in all but be did not know the name of fourth one. They arrived at the Labour Office at about 10-00 or 10-15 a.m. At that time there were certain persons standing at the gate who said that the car will not be allowed to pass through the gate. The witness pointed to the four accused present in Court and said that they were present there and he was subsequently told that these were the persons concerned. The four accused were in the forefront. They tried to open the door of the car but did not succeed due to some mechanical defect. The slogan raising started. The van carrying other officers also arrived and the complainant and others came out of the Car. The tyre of the car was deflated but the witness was not aware as to who had done that. The witness then proceeded on to speak of various slogans raised there. When he tried to change the tyre of the car the accused present in the court stopped him from doing so. In his cross examination the witness denied that he was appointed on the recommenda tions of the complainant and said that he had applied for the job about one month prior to his appointment and had requested one Mazhar in the Purchase Department for the job. He denied that he had been directed to depose against the Union. The witness had not yet been confirmed. He was then asked certain questions with regard to the details of the visit of Rana and his companions but these questions are of no consequence It was on the next date that the names of Cheema and Zafar were disclosed to him. He was not aware of the place of duty of the four accused. He only came to know later that the accused were employees of the Corporation. He denied the suggestion that he was making a false state ment so that he may be confirmed on the present job or that he was assigned the duty of breaking the union or that he had been appointed with the specific purpose to be available against the union or that he was to lead 8 persons to intimidate the Union. If he were a false witness, there was nothing to stop him from saying that Tahir Abbas and Jehanzeb deflated the tyres of the vehicle but he candidly stated that he was not aware who had done so. This shows that he has started what he in fact saw for himself. Another important prosecution witness is Zafar Iqbal P. W.

5. He was the Joint Secretary of Roti Corporation Employees' Union at the relevant time and had gone to the Directorate to attend the conciliation proceedings as one of the representatives of the Union. According to this witness on arriving at the directorate at 9-30 or 9-45 a.rn he found an assembly of 30 to 35 persons outside the gate in which all the four accused were present. He saw Tahir Abbas and Jehanzeb accused deflating the tyres of Fiat and Suzuki Van respectively, The witness also found that during the conciliation proceedings slogans were being raised outside, which were stopped for some time on the directions of the Assistant Director but were resumed at the instigation of Tahir Abbas accused No.

1. In cross-examination the witness denied that Tahir Abbas had given some blank sheets pertaining to the union or that Exh. P.W. 1/5 was such blank-paper bearing the signatures of Tahir Abbas and the contents were written by this witness. He denied that he was promoted to his present post to crush the Union. According to him his promotion was because he was the senior most and best qualified. No question whatsoever was put to him with regard to the allegations of raising of slogans, deflating of tyres, etc. and his version of this aspect has gone absolutely unchallenged. P.W. 6 Zafar Iqbal is yet another eye-witness. He had gone to the Directorate along with the complainant in the Fiat Car. His version is the same as that of the complainant and his other witnesses. He deposed to the various slogans raised by the accused. He deposed about blocking the entry of complainant and his party into the Director and to the deflating of the tyres by Tahir Abbas and Jehanzeb, to the temporary stoppage of slogan raising on the asking of the Assistant Director and recurrence thereof at the instigation of Tahir Abbas. He also gave other details of the allegations. He was also a signatory to the report Exh. P.W. 1/2 submitted by the complainant to the management as to what happened at the Directorate. He proved his endorsement Exh. P. W. 5/2 o n the reply Exh: P.W. 1/14 submitted by Tahir Abbas accused to the charge sheet served on him. In cross-examination the witness stated that he reached the Directorate at about 10-15 a.m. Conciliation proceedings continued for about one hour. He confirmed that the information of intended demonstration by the accused was given to the complainant by one. Butt in Baghbanpura Roti Plant. He denied the suggestion that he was not present at the Directorate, or that slogans were not raised or that no incident took place there. The learned counsel for the accused on the one hand suggested to this witness that he was not present at the Labour Directorate but in the next question suggested that this witness and his companions had gone to the Directorate in a large number to overawe the accused. He deposed that Zaidi D. W. was reported to be visiting different plants and instigating the workers against the Management, In their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. all the accused denied the allegations ,against them. Tahir Abbas was questioned if it was correct that a notice was published in Pakistan ,Times dated 7th November, 1979 informing the accused of a domestic enquiry against him and appointment of enquiry officer to which he stated that the publication came to his notice on which he telegraphically asked for a fresh date. He admitted that although in the notice it was mentioned that he had admitted in his reply to the charge-sheet that slogans were raised as of right but he did not contradict that in his reply to the Management. Similarly all the 'other accused also denied the allegations. The accused examined Sh. Saeed Ahmad Office Superintendent, Office of the Joint Director, Labour Welfare, Lahore, Muhammad Ashraf, Senior Clerk, Office of the Joint Director, Lahore and Syed Riaz Haider Zaidi as defence witnesses. Sh. Saeed Ahmad brought- a file containing conciliation proceedings. He deposed that according to- the file minutes of the meeting were recorded by the Conciliator. Normally he carries the file of such cases to the Conciliator and although it is not one of his duties he sits with the Con ciliator sometimes. On 30th September, 1979 he was present at .the proceedings which continued from 10-30 to 12-30 p.m. According to the minutes Rana Muhammad Akram and Khalid Karim attended the meeting, on behalf of the Management and from the other side Tahir Abbas and Riaz Haider Zaidi were present. Proceedings were postponed to 1st December, 1979 so that the new office-bearers of the Union should participate in the proceedings. The Union representatives had come to the Directorate at about 9.30 a m. or 10.00 a.m. Till the arrival of the Management's representative Tahir Abbas and Zaidi sat in the room of the Conciliator while this witness sat in his own room. The Management's representatives came at 10-15 or 10-30 a.m. When the meeting started Zaidi and Tahir Abbas were sitting in the Conciliator's room and two Mushtaqs were present in the Conciliator's office. After the meeting they went to the Zonal Director. During the meeting this witness did not bear any noise nor any complaint was made to the Conciliator. He was not aware if there was slogan raising before the commencement of the meeting. In cross-examination this witness stated that if there is official, work in progress in his room it is at times not possible for him to hear any noise outside the Directorate. He stated that if he is busy in work he cannot bear the noise. Before the conciliation proceedings he was busy with preparation of the cases. He admitted that he first took Tahir Abbas to the room of the Conciliator, left him there and came back. He further admitted that while sitting in his room he could not see if Tahir Abbas was present in Conciliator's office. The witness did not record the proceedings in his own hand on that day although previously he had been doing so. He denied the suggestion that on the previous night he and Muhammad Ashraf D.W. we entertained at a dinner at "Rotighar" by the accused. He admitted that names of Rana Muhammad Akram and Khalid Karim were mentioned as participants of the meeting for the reason that only they were officially invited. Those who were not so invited were not mentioned in the minutes. He admitted that other persons in addition to those officially invited to attend the meeting were present but their names were not recorded. The witness did not remember the number of times or the number of occasions on which he left the room of the Conciliator during the conciliation proceedings on 30th September, 1979. He was unable to state as to the number of occasions on which the Conciliator consulted the witness. He denied that he did not attend the conciliation proceedings. He did not know who was Afghani (President of the Union) and was unable to say if he was present there. Out of the 8 persons present there the witness recognize only the four accused. Muhammad Ashraf D.W. 2 is a clerk in the Labour Directorate. He deposed that he was on duty on 30th September; 1979 from 7-30 to 2-00 p.m. and from his place of duty the main gate of the Directorate and the road were visible. To his knowledge there was no untoward incident or noise outside the gate from 7-30 a.m. to 2-00 p.m. In reply to question by Mr. M. A. Ghani, learned counsel for the complainant, the witness stated that he could not say if he heard noise on 27th, 28th; 29th of September 1st, 2nd and 3rd of October, 1979 because he could not remember such old happenings. On a question by the learned counsel for explaining the reason to specifically remember such facts on the 30th which also was an old happening the witness stated that he had pot specially deposed about the 30th of September, 1979. The witness knew Tahir Abbas only who had met the witness a day earlier in connection with summons from the Commission. On the asking of the witness, Tahir Abbas accused told him that he was to depose with regard to the incident of 30th September,1979. He denied that he was entertained at Rotighar on the previous night. The witness knew Riaz Haider Zaidi being on visiting terms. Zaidi met the witness outside the Court room and told him that he was to depose in connection with incident of 30th September, 1979. He denied that he was told by Tahir Abbas to depose in favour of the accused. According to this witness 5 or 6 clerks sit with him. He was asked to explain as to why he has specially been picked to depose as Defence Witness by the accused when there were 5 or 6 other clerks in the same room. The witness said that he did not know and the reason must be within the knowledge of the accused. Syed Riaz Haider Zaidi appearing as D. W. 3 stated that he alongwith Tahir Abbas and the two Mushtaqs were present at .the Conciliator's office. They contacted Superintendent Conciliation. Till then the Conciliator had not arrived. They sat in the room of the Conciliator. At 10-30 a .m: Management's representatives arrived and conciliation started which continued for about an hour and a half it was decided to keep the conciliation pending till elections and thereafter they left. In cross examination this witness stated that he was not an office-bearer of Roti Plant Employees' Union but has the General Secretary of United Labour Federation with which the Roti Plant Employees' Union was affiliated. He controlled the affairs of all the affiliated unions in the Punjab. He admitted that he was a dismissed employee of Lever Brothers Limited. He further admitted that he had remained under trial in several criminal cases by the Lever Brothers. He had been accompanying Tahir Abbas to Islamabad in connection with his complaint case No. 4 (126/79) pending before this Commission as his witness. He guided the accused for preparing replies to charge-sheets. He had been going to the gates of various plants of Roti Plants to see the workers. He admitted that he did not follow any profession and trade unionism was his whole time work. He had no independent source of livelihood and was paid by the unions and the Federations for working for them. According to him the complainant was accompanied with 5 to 7 persons on 30th September, 1979 including Zafar Iqbal P.W. Dealing with the defence evidence first. No doubt Sh. Saeed Ahmad, Office Superintendent D.W. I is not connected with either of the parties and his evidence would have been of use to the accused but for the facts which came out in his cross-examination. The accused produced him to establish that the incident outside the Directorate and inside its premises during conciliation proceedings in which slogans were raised did not take place. He has categorically stated that on 30th, September, 1979 he was busy in his work as conciliation proceedings were due and that in such a situation, when there is official work he is not' in a position to hear may noise outside the Directorate, H: again admitted that he left the concilia tion proceeding a number of times. He admitted that there were about 8 persons on both sides but recognized the accused only. Apart from the above admission made in this or cross-examination the witness did not state that there was no slogan raising before the commencement of the meeting outside the Disectorate. What he said was that he was not aware of such a fact. He further stated that he took Tahir Abbas to the room of the Conciliator and left him there. Sitting in his office he could not see if Tahir Abbas remained in conciliator's office. His statement, therefore, is of no use to the accused. While sitting in his room he could not watch the activities of Tahir Abbas nor he could bear or see what was happening outside the gate of the Directorate. He has not said one word touching upon the presence of the remaining three accused and their alleged participation in the ugly drama. No reliance can be placed on his statement. D.W. 2 Muhammad Ashraf claimed that from his seat he could see the gate but on 30th September, 1979 he did no; witness the alleged incident or hear any noise. In cross-examination he was unable to give any reason to specifically remember the claimed fact on that particular day although he stated that he was not in a position 'to remember such old incidents. It is surprising that out of 5 or 6 other clerks occupying the same place of duty only this witness was selected to depose in favour of the defendants. In this background, his admission that Tahir Abbas accused met him a day earlier and told the witness to depose with regard to the alleged incident and that Riaz Haider Zaidi, General Secretary of the Federation, D.W. 3 who was known to this witness met him outside the Court room and told him that he was to depose in connection with the alleged incident, the suggestion that the witness had been entertained on the previous night by the accused at Rotighar and his selection out of 5 or 6 other clerks become significant. Further his statement is in general terms without touching upon the specific slogan raising, deflating the tyres of the cars and blocking the entry of management's representatives into the Directorate. Coming to the last defence witness, namely Syed Riaz Haider Zaidi D.W. 3 his interest in the accused is clearly reflected from his statement. He admitted that he had been accompanying Tahir Abbas accused to Islamabad to prosecute complaint Case No. 4 (126/79) before this Bench. He was advising Tahir Abbas on legal matters and guided the accused in preparing replies to. the charge-sheets. He had been going to the gates of plants of Roti Corporation to see the workers: As admitted by D.W. 2 Riaz Haider Zaidi told the witness to depose in connection with alleged occurrence on 30th September, 1979 and it is not difficult to infer that he must have told him to depose in favour of the accused. Even otherwise this witness does not have enviable antecedents. He is a 'dismissed worker of Lever Brothers and had been facing criminal trials. He does not follow any profession and trade unionism is his whole time work. He is a person without any independent source of livelihood and is paid by the unions and Federation for working for the n. As such he would definitely look after the goose which lays golden eggs for him. He admitted that he was not an office-bearer of Roti Plant Employees' Union but was representing the union at the Conciliation proceedings. It' will be difficult to find a more interested witness. I have, therefore, no hesitation in discarding the evidence of this defence witness also. The complainant examined 5 witnesses in support of his statement. They are all consistent even with regard to the minute details. Their statements are free from discrepancies that complainant and his witnesses had gone to the office of the Conciliator to attend the conciliation pro ceedings. The complainant had been fore-warned with regard to the proposed demonstration by the accused at the Directorate and the fact that 30 to 35 persons including the 4 accused were present there, shows that this warning was not without substance. The complainant, Khalid Karim and Ahmad Hassan had been deputed by the management to attend the proceedings. Asghar Ali P.W. 4 drove the management's representatives to the Directorate in Fiat Car. Zafar lqbal P. W. 5 was attending the proceedings on behalf of the C.B.A. and Zafar Iqbal P.W. 6 was taken by Rana, the complainant with him. As such their presence at the Directorate at. the relevant time is established. None of the witnesses has been cross-examined or shaken in his claim with regard to presence at the Directorate. All the witnesses are unanimous that the four accused were amongst a crowd of workers gathered at the Directorate; the management representatives were gheraoed outside the Directorate; vehicles carrying them were punctured; filthy slogans were raised and continued to be raised all along and that these were aimed at pressurising, threatening and coercing the Management in accepting the demands. As I have already observed in an earlier para. of this judg ment, the learned counsel for the accused did not cross-examine the witnesses with regard to alleged gheraoe; puncturing of the motors and raising of slogans and contended himself with questioning the witnesses with regard to the antecedents of the complainant and other similar aspects. All the questions in the world except the relevant ones have been asked leaving the statements of prosecution witnesses absolutely unshaken. It is an admitted fact that a charter of demands containing 41 demands was pending settlement between the Management and the Union. It is also to evidence that the office-bearers of the Union had decided to go to the extent of using pressure, intimidation, and threat to have the demands accepted. A reference can usefully be made to Exh P.W. f/11, a document' which has not been controverted. It wax issued by the Roti Plant Employees Union wherein it was mentioned that in order to have the demands accepted the officers shall be gheraoed till such tinge that the demands were accepted otherwise all shall have to go on strike for which preparation should be started: Exh. P.W. 1/12 is a confidential report submitted by the complainant to his superior officers with regard to what happened on 30th September, 1979 at the Directorate. This is the earliest version of the matter and is absolutely in conformity with the complainant and the evidence recorded at the trial. The complainant also placed on record reply of Tahir Abbas accused Exh. P.W. 1 / 14 which the accused submitted to the charge-sheet served on him for misconduct on the basis of incident of 30th September, 1919. In second para. of the reply the accused stated "Being a Syed I would not tell a lie and i must confess that I did raise slogans in the Labour Directorate on 30th September, 1979 and deflated the tyres of the car as mentioned in the charge-sheet but this was my right and purely a private act of mine for which no departmental action can be taken against me because the employees are liable to disciplinary action for acts committed in the premises of the-office and not outside. The Labour Directorate is not in the jurisdiction of Roti Corporation." In para. 3 of the same reply this accused made grievance of the fact that Jehanzeb, Mushtaq Ahmad and Mushtaq Ahmad Baker his co-accused were not charge-sheeted although their presence was alleged. Tahir Abbas accused did not deny his signatures on the charge-sheet but his case as appearing in the cross-examination of P. W. 5 Zafar lqbal, Joint Secretary of the Union was that the accused had left some signed blank papers with Zafar 1qbal and the contents of this document were written by Zafar Iqbal himself. Nor that there is no basis for such a defence. Tahir Abbas accused in his statement under section 342, Cr. P. C. admitted that in spite of this admission having come to his knowledge through a notice published in Pakistan Times he did not controvert it in his telegraphic communication on 10th November, 1979 to the Management while asking for a fresh date for conduct of the enquiry. It is also apparent from the cross-examination that no effort has been made with regard to absolving any of the accused except Tahir Abbas from the charges against them. It appears as if the defence was oblivious of the fact Tahir Abbas was not the only one on trial. In view of the above I find that the charges against all the four, accused are established beyond doubt. I convict Tahir Abbas, Mushtaq; Ahmad No. 2, Jehanzeb accused No. 3 and Mushtaq Ahmad son of Nabi Bakhsh accused No. 4 under section 16 (I) (d) of Industrial Relations! Ordinance,

969. With regard to the sentences I find that these. Young men over-stepped under the misguided influence. Taking a lenient view therefore I sentence each of the four accused to imprisonment till the rising of the Court. However I further direct that Tahir Abbas, General Secretary, Mushtaq Ahmad son of Nabi Bakhsh Propaganda Secretary and Mushtaq Ahmad accused No. 2 shall cease to hold their respective offices under section 53 (4) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 in the Union during the current term and all the four accused are disqualified from holding any office in any Trade Union for the term immediately following it. Order accordingly.