1984 PLP 1570 (PLC)

3. In support of the prosecution, six witnesses were examined on the allegation of the unfair labour practice namely (1) Muhammad Khaqan Khan (P. W. 1), Assistant, Personnel Officer, Karachi Dock Labour Board, (2) Najmuddin Hashmi, P. W. 2, Foreman employed by M/s. Premier Mercantile Service Ltd., Stevedoring firm complainant No. 2, (3) Azmat Kazmi, Labour Officer, P. W. 3, (4) Iqtidarul Haque, Labour Officer, P. W. 4, (5) Muhammad Yunus, Labour Officer, P. W. 5 and (6) Mr. Zafar Abbas, Labour Officer, P. W.

6. Except witness No. 1. who was a formal witness, other witnesses gave eye‑witness account of the alleged strike which occurred during the morning and evening shifts on 14th October, 1982.

4. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that Messrs Premier Mer cantile Service Ltd., a Stevedoring firm was engaged to load a cargo of about 1,200 tons of cowdung for export on m. v. Falcon Express". The Stevedoring firm, therefore, requisitioned two gangs of dock wor kers, namely a hatch gang and wharf gang for each of the day and night shift of l1th, 12th and 13th October, 1982. But loading could not be done (except in night shift of the 13th October) as the ship had not arrived nor cargo was available. Nevertheless, both the gangs were paid the prescribed wages in full as `disappointment money', but not any incentive. Loading commenced during the night shift on 13th October, 1982 when some of the trucks containing the bags of cowdung went over the ramp directly into the hold of the ship, which was a RORO ship equipped with facilities for `Roll On' and `Roll Off'. The trucks were accompanied by by‑road workers who dropped the bags on the floor of the hatch, which were then carried and stacked by the hatch gang. Although, wharf gang was engaged during that night shift, no work was done by them, although some wharf workers insisted on working in the hatch along‑5 the by‑road workers. As there was no worker to be done by wharf gang, as the trucks were going directly into the hold, no wharf gang was booked for the day and night shifts on 14th October, 1982. By‑road workers who came alongwith trucks were to drop the cargo on the floor of the hatch and there was no work to be done by the wharf workers, Hakim Khan, accused No. 2 and Ameen, accused No. 3 who were working on the adjoining berth No. 16, came with a crowd of workers to berth No. 15 objected to the by‑road workers working in the hatch on the plea that wharf gang had not been booked. They prevented the trucks from going into the hold and threatened to damage the trucks. The work stopped at about 9‑30 a. m. and although it was resumed for a short while on the pursuasion of the Labour Officer of the Board, the work stopped again for the remaining period of the day shift. No work was done in the evening shift, with the result that about 900 tons of cargo was shut out.

5. Iqtidarul Haq, P. W.

4. Labour Officer of' the Karachi Dock Labour Board stated that he tried to contact Khan Madin Afradi, Presi dent of the Union, accused No. I on telephone in order to request him to pursuade the workers not to stop the work, but as the telephone was not working, he went personally to the accused where he found him unwell as be was on sick leave. The accused explained that according to the rules, the engagement of wharf gang was necessary and no work shall proceed, if wharf gang is not engaged, and declined to intervene. Muhammad Yunus P. W. 5, Labour Officer who was night duty on 14th October, 1982 stated that he saw Arbab Khan, accused No. 4, in the crowd and told him that the work should not be interrupted as the dispute regarding non-booking of wharf gang could be settled by the Board. That the accused replied that he will not allow the workers to resume work and threatened to stop the Work on other berths, if the work is allowed to be done by road workers without engaging wharf gang, with the result that the work stopped and ship left minus 900 tons of cargo.

6. The statements of the accused were recorded under section 342, Cr. P. C. but the prosecution case was not seriously challenged. It was admitted by them that the dock workers objected to by‑road workers doing the work without engaging wharf gang. However, they denied that they had instigated or incited the workers to go on illegal strike. The accused how ever, did not lead any evidence in defence.

7. I have heard Mr. S. A. Sarwana, Advocate for the complainants and Messers Obaidur Rehman with Mr. Ashraf Khan, Advocate for the accused.

8. Mr, Sarwana for‑ the complainants referred to the definition of unfair labour practice under section 16 (1) (d) and (e) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969, and submitted that the accused used intimida tion coercion and threats to compel the Stevedoring firm to accept their demand for engaging wharf gang during the two shifts on, 14th October, 1982 for loading cargo and instigated and incited the dock workers to stop the loading, thereby, caused cessation of the work resulting in illegal strike. The demand of the accused for engaging wharf gang appears to be misconceived in the circumstances of the present case. Wharf workers are engaged to do work on the wharves. But if there is no work to be done on the wharf, there is no need to engage wharf gangs. When trucks come on berths, it is the duty of by‑road workers who come alongwith the trucks, to drop the cargo on the wharf. Thereafter, the wharf workers lift the bags, put them in slings and hook the slings. Then the crane lifts the slings and drops them on the floor of the hatch. It is then the duty of the hatch workers to remove the bags from the slings and stack the cargo. However, in the instant case, the trucks went directly into the ship, with the result that there was no work to be done on the wharf by the wharf gang. The by‑road workers who were employed by the exporter and not by the Stevedoring firm was only dropping the bags from the trucks on to the floor of the hatch. They were not doing dock work as such. The by‑road workers who come alongwith the trucks have to drop the bags from the trucks had gone into the hatch. Therefore, the booking of the wharf gang was futile and it is an unreasonable demand of the wharf gang for being engaged and being paid for no work. Zafar Abbas, Labour Officer, P. W. 6 deposed that no wharf gang is at all engaged when wheat is unloaded from the ship by evacuators as there is no work to be done by the wharf workers. The wheat evacuated on the berth is bagged by contract labour and not the wharf workers.

8. The presence of Hakeem Khan, accused No. 2, Ameen, accused No. 3 and Arbab Khan, accused No. 4 and their active participation in the strike has been established by the prosecution witnesses and not challenged in cross‑examination. Their presence was further corroborated by the record of the labour Board, which showed that they had been booked in their respective shifts. There was no suggestion in the cross‑examination nor in the 342, Cr. P. C. statement to challenge their presence and active participation in the strike. 1, therefore, find them guilty of the offence charged.

9. As far as accused No.1 Khan Madin Afradi is concerned, he was admittedly on medical leave on 14th October, 1982, and was not present on the wharf. Although he declined to pursuade dock workers to allow work to continue, it cannot be said that he bad incited or instigated the workers. There is no other evidence of his overt act leading to the illegal strike. I acquit this accused.

10. Considering that the accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were only workers and not office‑bearers of the Union, it appears that they were misguided into thinking that by‑road workers were doing "dock work", which is forbidden under the Karachi Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1973. Under the Scheme, no worker who is not. a registered dock worker, can be engaged to do, dock work and no person other than a registered employer, shall employ any worker on dock work. Neither the by‑road workers were doing any dock work nor did the Stevedore firm engaged them. In view of this misconception on the part of these accused, I would take a lenient view in this case. I impose a fine instead of sentence of imprisonment. Accordingly, I would impose a fine of Rs. 500 on each of the accused, Hakeem Khan son of Nawaz Khan, accused No. 2 and card No. WD‑1380, Ameen son of Sadullah Jan: wharf worker, Card No. WD‑1387, accused No. 3 and Arbab Khan worker Card No. WN‑363, accused No.

4. In case of non‑payment of fine, they will undergo one month's simple imprisonment. A. E. Order accordingly.