Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 12(36) of 1975, decided on 25th August 1975.

-- Ss. 22-C & 22-D-Powers of Commission - Appeal - Chairman convicting office-bearers of Trade Union for disobeying directions of Commission to refrain from doing unlawful slut---Conviction order passed immediately after recording their statement without full trial and evidence against them though they denied allegation and guilt of dis obedience of Commission's direction-Order of Chairman, held, sufferred from violation of principles of natural justice, hence set aside.

-- S. 22-C-Natural justice, principles of-Applicable to cases of com plaint involving disobedience of directions of Commission-Conviction in violation of principles of natural justice, held not proper.

Sadiq Muhammad Warraich for Appellants.

Muhammad A. Ghani for the Management.

Memo for the State.

This appeal is directed against the order dated 6-8-75, passed by the learned Chairman, whereby all the above-named appellants have been convicted under section 22-C of the I. R.O. for having disobeyed the directions earlier issued by the learned Chairman, and each one of them has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for four months together with a fine of Rs.500. In case of default in payment thereof each of the appellants has been further sentenced to S. I. for two months.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as under:

One Syed Abul Mahasin, Factory Manager, Premier Tobacco Industries, Jehangira, hereinafter referred to as the complainant, lodged a complaint of unfair labour practice against the five appellants, four out of whom happen to be Union office-bearers, alleging that they had instigated and fomented an illegal strike by the workers, to compel the Management to re-instate some workers who had earlier been convicted by tine learned Chairman in another case for committing unfair labour practice. The said complaint which was received at Karachi on 31-7-1975, was entertained by the learned Chairman, who after recording the statement of the complainant, issued prohibitory order against the workers of Premier Tobacco Industries including the five appellants, directing them to refrain from doing any wrongful act to avoid occurrence of unfair labour practice and also to call off' the strike, resume duties, and stop menacing attitude towards the Management. By the same order, which was telegraphically communicated, to the appellants, they were also directed to appear before the Chairman at Islamabad on 6-8-1975. When the appellants appeared before the learned Chairman as directed, the complainant filed another complaint under section 22-C of the I. R. O. against the appellants, alleging that the appellants had disobeyed the directions of the Chairman as they had continued their illegal strike and had also placed an embargo upon the removal of the manufactured cigarettes from the factories. The learned Chairman, after recording the statement of the complainant, there and then passed an order calling upon the appellants to explain as to why action under section 22-C for having disregarded the order passed by the learned Chairman on 31-7-1975, should not be taken against them. Thereafter, the learned Chairman immediately confronted the appellants with the above-said charges levelled against them and recorded their replies. In their replies, the appellants admitted that the strike was still continuing, but denied to have themselves any hand in it, which was construed by the learned Chairman as an admission of their guilt and has ultimately resulted in their conviction and sentence as described above.

3. At the hearing of this appeal, the Management made a request for r being joined as a necessary party which was acceded to and their representative Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani was heard.

4. Coining to the impugned order, we find that the learned Chairman, after passing the order, calling upon the appellants to show cause as to why action under section 2Z-C should not be taken against them proceeded to question the appellants about the charges levelled against them. Their answers recorded by the learned Chairman were construed as their admission of guilt and made the sole basis for their conviction. This was because the appellants in their statements had admitted that the strike by the workers was still continuing in spite of the prohibitory order issued by the Chairman. Looking at the statements of the appellants, one can notice that explanation had not been called for from any of the appellants, as to whether they had actually taken part in the illegal strike or placing of embargo on the removal of cigarettes. As already shown above, the prohibitory orders issued by the learned Chairman had only directed the appellant to refrain from doing any wrongful act, to avoid occurrence of unfair labour practice and further to call off strike, resume duties and stop menacing attitude towards the Management. It is therefore hard to understand as to how a mere admission by the appellants regarding continuance of strike by the workers could be treated as admission of their guilt. On the contrary, the appellants in very clear terms had pleaded innocence by stating that they had in fact tried to prevail upon the workers to call off the strike, but they were helpless as the strike had commenced at the instance of one Jenas Khan said to be the Central President of the Union. About placing of embargo upon the removal of the manufactured cigarettes by the workers, the appellants had offered a similar explanation. This by no stretch of imagination could therefore be construed as admission of their guilt by the appellants. If that is the case, then obviously the appellants were entitled to a full trial, which required recording of evidence against them, and that having been denied to them their " conviction and sentence are partly illegal, and opposed to the principles of natural justice. It has now been well established by various judicial pronouncements that in all proceedings whether judicial or administrative, the principles of natural justice are to be followed in case the proceedings have to result into such consequences which may affect the person, property, or any other right of the parties concerned. This rule has to apply even though the Legislature may have been silent about the procedure to be adopted in such proceedings.

5. Under these circumstances, the conviction and sentence of the appellants being illegal are set aside. The case is however remanded back to the learned Chairman for a proper trial as prima facie, a case under sec tion 22-C had been made out against the appellants.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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