1996 PLP 94 (PLC)

Muhammad Aslam Khan Representative for the Complainant S.M. Yaqoob for the Accused. Since there is common point of law involved in the above mentioned for complaints, therefore, I would like to dispose off the same by a one common order.

2. The complainants Abdullah Jan, Azizullah, Faiz Muhammad and Ali Muhammad have filed the abovementioned complaints claiming that they are permanent workers of accused mentioned above and have been working as worker from the different dates mentioned in the complaints.

3. It is contended by the complainants that since the establishment of the accused was denying them their due rights and was not giving them the benefits allowed under the law; therefore, they have formed a union in name and style of Ahmed Food Industries Mazdoor Ittehad Union on 22‑9‑1995 of which the complainants are members and filed an application before the Registrar for registration of he union on 2‑10‑1995. It is also alleged that they sent the intimation to the management of the establishment through the General Secretary of the union by Registered Post A.D. about the formation of the won and where after the management started harrasing the workers to pressures them not to form the union and desist from union activities. It is also alleged by the complainants that on various dates in the complaints the services of the complainants were terminated. It is also contended by them that since they have been illegally terminated from the services in contravention of the provision of I.R.O., 1969 which according to them is unfair labour practice; therefore, they pray that the accused be punished under section 15 read with section 53(1‑A) of the I.R.O., 1969.

4. I have perused the statements of complainant recorded under section 200, Cr.P.C. and their witnesses under section 202, Cr.P.C. and observe that their statements are not only inconsistent but they do not corroborate each other on material facts whereby the said complaint do not inspire the confidence for the purpose of issuance of process against the accused. Moreover, I find that the complaints are incompetent for the simple reason that the complainants have not joined the company as party which is admittedly a limited company and by a virtue of section 63 of the I.R.O., 1969 the company was necessary party in the proceedings which has not been done. This lucuna is fatal to the maintenance of the complaints; therefore, I hold that the complaints are not, competent, and therefore. the same are hereby dismissed under section 203, Cr.P.C. However, if the complainants have been removed illegally as alleged by them, it is open for them to seek remedy under section 25‑A of the I.R.O., 1969 before the competent Court for redressal of their grievance. H.B.T./249/NIRC Complaints dismissed.