Definitive Report - REPORT_NO67, 1963

1. 77. The complaint by the Karachi Trade Union of General Workers, which was submitted directly to the I.L.O, is embodied in two communications dated 3 May and 19 June 1962 respectively. These communications were then forwarded to the Pakistan Government, which informed the Office of its observations in a letter dated 10 October 1962.
2. 78. Pakistan has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

• Allegations relating to the Wrongful Dismissal of 107 Workers Employed by " Ali Automobiles Ltd.", Karachi
  79. 79 The complainants allege that as a result of demands for better working conditions made by workers employed by the firm of "Ali Automobiles Ltd.", Karachi, the management, in reprisal, closed the central workshop at the plant and laid off 107 workers.
  80. 80 In its reply the Government states that its inquiry into these allegations shows that there has been no violation of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. According to the Government's account the course of events was as follows: On 30 April 1962 the management of " Ali Automobiles Ltd." decided to close down one of its workshops; this involved terminating the services of 107 workers for whom there was no further employment. The workers regarded this measure as a lockout and went on strike. The Government for its part considered the strike to be illegal because it occurred at a time when the Conciliation Officer was trying to promote a settlement. This was considered to be a violation of section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959, and the issue was referred to the Industrial Court for determining whether the strike was legal or not. The Government states that the Court has not so far given a decision on the matter.
  81. 81 In the meantime, however, the Government states that the parties have concluded an agreement which has been duly signed by the management and union. The Government supplies a copy of this agreement under which the employer undertakes, inter alia, to give first consideration to the 107 dismissed workers whenever it decides to reopen the workshop. As regards the strike itself, the parties have agreed to accept in advance the decision of the Industrial Court as to its lawfulness, and the period of absence on strike will be treated as leave with or without pay if the strike is held illegal or as special leave with pay if it is held to be legal.
  82. 82 In previous cases the Committee has followed the practice of not proceeding to examine matters which are the subject of pending judicial proceedings, provided that these proceedings are attended by proper guarantees of due process of law, where such proceedings appear likely to make available information of assistance to the Committee in appreciating whether or not allegations are well founded.
  83. 83 In the present case, however, the question before the Industrial Court, viz. the disputed lawfulness of the strike, is a completely secondary issue-so much so that the strike is not even mentioned in the allegations put forward by the complainants. Accordingly, and having regard to the fact that the workers and employers have agreed to accept in advance the Court's decision on this point, the Committee considers that it need not wait for the verdict to be given before examining the substance of the case.
  84. 84 As regards the dismissal of 107 workers by the firm in question, it would appear from the Government's explanation that this measure was due to the closing down of one of the workshops in the plant and that this closure was itself due to production needs and was not an act of victimisation as the complainants allege (without supplying any evidence). In any event, since this question has subsequently been settled to the satisfaction of both parties by an agreement which provides for the progressive reinstatement of the 107 workers concerned, the Committee considers that it would be purposeless to pursue its examination of this aspect of the case and recommends the Governing Body to decide that these allegations do not call for further examination.
• Allegations relating to the Dismissal of Mr. Abdul Waheed
  85. 85 According to the complainants, Mr. Abdul Waheed, who had been sent to the I.C.F.T.U. College, Calcutta, to attend a trade union training course, was dismissed by Ali Automobiles Ltd." for having " spread poison of trade union movement in the factory ".
  86. 86 In its observations the Government states that Mr. Waheed was not dismissed because of his trade union activities or his attendance at the I.C.F.T.U course in Calcutta. According to the Government, the reasons for his dismissal were as follows. Mr. Waheed went on 30 days' leave from 17 January 1962. On his departure he informed the management that he intended to go to the I.C.F.T.U. College for training but did not indicate the length of the course. On the expiry of his leave he did not turn up for duty. The management sent him a letter on 6 March 1962, after waiting for three full weeks, and instructed him to report for duty by 19 March 1962. As there was no reply, another letter was sent to Mr. Waheed on 21 March 1962 informing him that his name had been struck off the permanent roll of the establishment under Standing Orders 8 (3) of the Schedule attached to the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1960.
  87. 87 The detailed and precise information supplied by the Government shows that Mr. Waheed's dismissal was due to serious misconduct on his part, viz. unwarranted absence. It would also appear that the measure in question was taken by virtue of the relevant regulations.
  88. 88 Accordingly the Committee considers that the complainants have not furnished proof that the dismissal which forms the subject of the complaint was due to Mr. Waheed's trade union activities or his attendance at a trade union course organised by the I.C.F.T.U, and therefore recommends the Governing Body to decide that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.