Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. HYD‑172 of 1981, heard on 21st October, 1981.

‑‑ Ss. 15 (1)(d), 53 & 37‑Unfair labour practice ‑‑ Conviction Allegation of termination of service of worker being due to Trade Union activities Bare word of complainant‑Veracity strongly disputed‑No other tangible evidence to support complainant's words‑Mere fact that complainant made complaint to officer of Labour Department 2 days after termination of his service‑Does not improve quality of his evidence or materially adds to it‑Prosecu tion case, m circumstances, held quite shaky and not fit for convic tion‑Conviction order passed by Labour Court; in circumstances, set aside in appeal by Appellate Tribunal as guilt not established beyond any reasonable doubt.

Abdul Ghani Khan for Appellant.

Amanullah Qureshi for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 21st October, 1981.

This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned VIth Labour Court, given on 16^thMarch 1981, convicting the appellant for an offence under section 15 (1) (d) read with section 53, I. R. O., for dis charging his employee, Sulaiman, on account of his trade union activities, and sentencing the appellant for the said offence to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 200 or in default of payment of fine, to suffer S.I. for one month.

2. The admitted facts of the case are that complainant Sulaiman was an employee of the accused at the latter's shop, which is run in the name of Ramzan Ali Mohammad Ali & Brothers, Hyderabad. It is also an admitted position that there is in Hyderabad a union of workmen by the name of Kerana Merchants Labour Union, which was formed on 1^st May, 1980, and was registered on 11^thMay, 1980. The said union was declared as C. B. A. for the Kerana Industry Hyderabad on 29^thJune, 1980. Complainant's services were terminated by the appellant on 10^thJuly, 1980. He filed a complaint against the appellant alleging that his services were terminated by the appellant due to his union activities and on account of his refusal to comply with the demand of the appellant that he should sever his connections with the aforesaid union of which he was an active member.

3. I have heard Mr. Abdul Ghani, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Amanullah Qureshi, the learned representative for complainant Sulaiman.

4. The sole issue which falls to be considered in the instant case is whether there is evidence on the record to sustain the conviction of the appellant. The learned Labour Court in convicting the appellant has relied upon, firstly, the evidence of complainant Sulaiman, the testimony of Sulaiman Kirio, the President of Kerana Merchants Labour Union, at Hyderabad, who was examined by complainant Suleman, and lastly, the evidence of defence witness, Habib Ahmad. the Assistant Director (Labour) Hyderabad. No doubt complainant Suleman, in his evidence before the Labour Court has testified that the appellant' bad asked him to sever his connections with the Kerana Merchants Labour Union of which he was an active member, and when he refused to comply with the demand of the appellant, the latter, in retaliation, terminated his services, but apart from the evidence of the complainant, whose veracity is strongly disputed by the appellant, there is no other tangible evidence in support,[ of the Complainant's allegation against the appellant. There is thus bars word of the complainant against toe word of the appellant. The learned Labour Court in its impugned decision took one notice of this fact and consequently has observed that on the basis of the prosecution evidence alone, it was not possible to arrive at the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of the offence with which he was charged. The learned Labour Court, however, has relied upon the evidence of t: defence witness in support of the prosecution allegation against the appellant. Before considering the evidence of the defence witness, I would like to examine the evidence of Suleman Kirio, the President of Kerana Merchants Labour Union. All that he has stated is that complainant Suleman had informed him that the appellant had terminated his services on account of his union activities. This evidence does not materially strengthen the oral testimony of the complainant against the appellant. No doubt, Suleman Kirio had stated that he had seen the appellant an receipt of the complaint of Suieman, but he did not state that the accused informed him that the services of the complainant had been terminated on account of his indulging in union activities or that he will take him back in service if he ceased to be a member of Kerana Merchants Labour Union. Now, as regards the evidence of Assistant Director (Labour), Habib Ahmad, whose testimony according to the Labour Court formed an adequate support to the testimony of complainant Suleman, all that he has stated is that he had received a complaint on 12 October, 1980 from complainant Suleman to the effect that the appellant had terminated his services on account of his union activities. Witness Habib Ahmad, how ever, had no personal knowledge of the matter and made no enquiry into the complaint against the appellant. The complaint made by complainant Suleman 2 days after his services were terminated, cannot be said to be such evidence as to materially support the allegations of the complainant against the appellant. The mere fact that the complainant made complaint to several persons does not improve the quality of his evidence or' materially add to his evidence. I am, therefore, of opinion that the complaint made by the complainant to Assistant Director (Labour) 2 days after the termination of his services does not materially add to the pro. section case against the appellant, which is quite shaky and not fit for basing conviction thereon, as pointed out by the learned Labour Court itself.

5. For the reasons discussed by me above, I am of opinion that the guilt of the appellant has not been established beyond any reasonable; doubt. I would, therefore, give the benefit of doubt to the appellant and would set aside his conviction and sentence and acquit him.

Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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