Find a Lawyer

Complaint No. 664 of 1974, decided on 15th January 1975.

---S. 53-Workman charged with inciting others to resort to illegal strike-Evidence produced not free from bias-Employer's own conduct indicating fault on his part-Complaint, in circumstances, dismissed.

Mian Abdul Lat f for the Complainant.

Accused in person.

This is a complaint under section 53 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. 1969, on the allegation that the accused persuaded the workmen or instigated them to commence an illegal strike.

The complainant Abdur Razzaque is the Proprietor of a Weaving Factory, consisting of four power looms, installed at Chak No. 2 4/R. Ii. Dudiwala District Lyallpur. There are numerous similar small factories in the same village, owned by different proprietors. The workers in the said factories have formed Trade Union, known as Power Looms Workers' Union, Dudiwala. Mr. Zamin Khan Khattak is the President of the Union. In June 1974, Pakistan Government declared that every worker would get a cost of living allowance at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. The workers of Dudiwala received that amount for the month of June but in the next month a dispute arose between the workers and the Proprietors. The claim of the Proprietors was that the declaration of the Government relating to the cost of living allowance was not applicable to their factories because the workers were piece-rated workers land not monthly-paid workers. Settlement was arrived at that the allowance would be paid for month of July and then the parties, would wait for the decision of the Government. It was stipulated in the settlement that if the Government did not declare a clear policy the next fortnightly payment would not include the cost of living allowance. It appears that the Proprietors did not pay this allowance in accordance with tie settlement and so the workers went on strike on 7th August 1974. The Labour and Police Departments intervend and prevailed on the parties to call off the strike and so the workers re-started on 8th August 1974. Again on 22nd August 1974, the workers went on strike. The reason was that the question of allowance had not been decided by the Proprietors. Again the Labour Department and the Magistrate concerned intervened and the strike was called off on 24th August 1974. The complaint is to the effect that on both the occasions the accused Muhammad Sarwar was responsible for the strike.

The prosecution examined four witnesses. On the bases of the evidence Muhammad Sarwar was charge-sheeted under section 53 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1909. The remaining three accused namely; Abdul Bari, Hashmat Ali and Sardar Muhammad were discharged.

The only question which needs determination in this case is whether Muhammad Sarwar accused was responsible for the strike. Mr. Abdul Majid (P.W. 1) is a Labour Inspector. Mr. Muhammad Ikhlas (P. W. 2) is the Police Officer. They stated that on both the occasions of the strike they intervened and prevailed on the workers to call off the strike. They stated that Muhammad Sarwar accused was not present. On the second occasion he was called by these officers to join in the negotiation. The evidence of these persons did not incriminate the accused in this case. Abdur Razzaque (P. W. 4) is the Proprietor of the factory. His evidence is that on both the occasions Mr. Sarwar accused has led the workers to his factory and incited them to go on strike. He is supported by Mr. Zamin Khan Khattak (P. W. 3) who is President of Workers' Union, Dudiwala. In my opinion their evidence is not trustworthy. The reason is that Muhammad Sarwar accused call a meeting and got a no-confidence vote passed against Mr. Zamin Khan Khattak. On behalf of accused it was stated that it is due to this vote of no-confidence that criminal. complaint has been filed against him. The possibility cannot be ruled out that Muhammad Sarwar is involved in this case due to enmity between two Labour leaders. It is a hard fact that the workers had gone on strike on both the occasions but is not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had incited them to go on strike. To a great extent the fault may be with the Proprietors, 1, therefore, hold the accused not guilty and accordingly he is equitted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.