1993 PLP 473 (PLC)

Ashraf Hussain Rizvi for the Complainant. S.M. Yaqub for the Accused. Date of hearing: 2nd July, 1992. This is a complaint under section 53(1‑A) read with section 15 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 hereinafter referred to as the IRO). It has been filed by Mr. Muhammad Ali, General Secretary of Plasticrafters Labour Union. It is stated in the complaint that there are two unions in the establishment of the Plasticrafters (Pvt.) Limited. The other is Plasticrafters Mazdoor Union. The latter was C.BA. upto December, 1988. The Labour Union returned successful at the referendum and was certified to be C.B.A. on 4‑1‑1989. The change was however not relished by the respondents and as such they did not cooperate with it. Hurdles were created in the lawful trade union activities of the complainant union. A campaign of villification was let loose against it. The officers of the union were intimated by threats, victimization and false allegations. No settlement could therefore be executed between the C.B.A. and the management during its terms of office. Several workers were suspended on allegations of misconduct and prolonged inquiries were held against them. The officers and active workers were kept outside the factory premises thereby disabling the union to continue its lawful tradc union: activities. A complaint was also filed by the management against officers and active members of the union on the allegation of illegal strike and go‑slow. The union also filed complaint against the management for illegal lockout. That complaint was based on acts of unfair labour practice allegedly committed by the management up to the end of May, 1990. The present complaint is based on acts said to have been committed thereafter. In the opinion of complainant these acts constitute unfair labour practice.

2. The respondents have filed comments in response to a notice from this Court, denying all the allegations made in complaint. Since the respondents are of the opinion that a case of unfair labour practice has not been made I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that Mr. Saleem Hussain Zaidi accused No. 6 was appointed as Inquiry Officer. At first the inquiry was being held in the factory premises. The inquiry however made no progress as the Inquiry Officer was an inexperienced person and contended himself only to the recording attendance of the parties. Then venue of inquiry was suddenly changed from factory to head office of the company situated in State Life Building, Wallace Road, about 12 miles away depriving the suspended/locked out workers of their contact with other members working in the factory. On 27‑1‑1991 inquiry of Muhammad Shamim Card No. 201 proceeded. His statement was recorded. When copy of his statement was demanded by said Muhammad Shamim as well as the complainant who was helping him in the inquiry, respondent No. 5 (Mr. S.M. Yousuf, Security Officer) beat the complainant and pushed both him and Muhammad Shamim out of the inquiry hurling abuses and threatening to kill them. Syed Mohiuddin Qadri, Personnel and Administration Manager respondent No. 4 misbehaved with Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed, Vice‑President of the Union when he enquired of him about failure of the management to deduct subscription from the wages of workers by set off. Such a complaint was made to respondent No. 3 but no action was taken against him. Nor was any action taken for deduction of the subscription. On 20‑1‑1991 the labour union received 73 resignation forms from workers out of which 29 related to members of Labour Union. Those workers had however informed the union that the said registrations were signed under duress. In the circumstances the management had committed unfair labour practice.

4. The learned counsel for the other side submitted that none of the abovementioned acts fall within the mischief of section 15 of the I.R.O. The complaint is, therefore, liable to be dismissed summarily.

5. I have carefully considered the arguments of learned counsel for the complainant and. the allegation made in the complaint shifting; the place of inquiry or holding prolonged inquiry do not constitute unfair labour practice specified in section 15 of the I.R.O. Similarly failure to extend period of suspension would also not constitute unfair labour practice. Assaulting the complainant or a worker would certainly attract penal provisions of Pakistan Penal Code but the act does not fall within the mischief of section

15. It is not stated in para. No. 11 of the complaint as to who had sent 73 resignation forms to the union and who had obtained the signatures of those workers under duress. In the absence of a definite allegation against the management in this respect it is not possible to hold it responsible for the said Act. In the circumstances I am of the view that a case of unfair labour practice has not been made out. The complaint is, therefore, dismissed summarily. H.B.T./189/NIRC Complaint dismissed.