West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 Section O 15 (3) (h) of misconduct or misconduct by parties and in no way affecting the production of mills
Appeals Nos. LHR‑428, 665 and 692 of 1977/Pb., decided on 24th January, 1981.
West Pakistan
Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑--
‑‑‑‑S. O. 15 (3) (h)‑Misconduct‑Riotous or disorderly behaviour-- Fight between two workmen starting at spur of moment without any premeditation‑‑Management not in any way involved ‑ Fight having no connection with employment of parties and not in any way affecting production of mills‑Such fight, held, does not amount to misconduct of riotous or disorderly behaviour in circumstances.
H. R. Haider for Petitioner (in all Appeals).
Ch. Anwar Ali for Respondents (in all Appeals).
JUDGMENT
Gama Masih and Muhammad Yasin were permanent employees of Packages Limited, Lahore, It is alleged that Muhammad Yasin at the relevant time belonged to C.B.A. Union while Gama Masih was member of the rival union. On 30‑6‑1976 while Muhammad Yasin and Gama Masih were on duty, they quarrelled with each other. According to the version of Muhammad Yasin, at about 3.25 p.m. Gama Masih, who was working in the Machine Room at the basement, came into the Machine Hall and started distributing pamphlets. Muhammad Yasin claims to have asked Gama Masih to stop distributing the said pamphlets, on which Gama Masih flared up and with the help of his supporters in the Electric Department started beating Muhammad Yasin. According to him, he was beaten with a belt which Gama Masih and his supporters took it with them after beating him. Muhammad Yasin further claims that he received injuries/hurts at his back, neck and cheek. He lodged a report with the Personnel Manager against the said Gama Masih. On the other hand, the version of Gama Masih is that on 30‑6‑1976 he was going to Machine Hall to take his own Card because he wanted the signatures of his Incharge on the said Card near PM‑3 he was caught by the neck by Muhammad Yasin, who is alleged to be a Ghunda' of the union and started beating him as to why he (Gama Masih) was distributing the pamphlets. Muhammad Yasin is further alleged to have abused Gama Masih and gave slaps on his face, Muhammad Yasin is further alleged to have threatened him with dire consequences. Gama Masih also lodged a complaint with the Personnel Manager against Muhammad Yasin. On receipt of these complaints the Management issued show‑cause notices to both Muhammad Yasin and Gama Masih. Their explanations were found unsatisfactory. A joint enquiry was ordered against them. Both the parties produced their respec tive evidence before the Enquiry Officer and they also cross‑examined the witnesses of the opposite‑party. The Enquiry Officer vide enquiry report dated 6‑8‑1976 found both Muhammad Yasin and Gama Mash guilty of disorderly and riotous behaviour. After final show‑cause notices both of them were dismissed from service. After serving grievance notices, each of them filed separate petitions under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, Gama Masih in his petition produced Alamdar Hussain (P.W. 1) and himself appeared as P. W. 2. The Management produced Mr. Khalil Ahmad Sheikh as R. W. 1 The Labour Court vide impugned decision dated 30‑6‑1977 accepted his petition and ordered the re‑instatement of Gama Masih in service with back benefits, for the intervening period. The Management has challenged this impugned decision in appeal before this Tribunal Muhammad Yasin in his petition himself appeared as P. W. 1 while the Management produced Mr. Khalil Ahmad Sheikh. Personnel Manager, as R. W. 1 before the Labour Court. The Labour Court vide impugned decision dated 22‑9‑1977 accepted the petition and ordered the reinstatement of Muhammad Yasin in service without back benefits. Against the impugned decision the Management has filed an appeal against the re‑instatement of Muhammad Yasin in service, while Muhammad Yasin has filed an appeal claiming back benefits
2. Since all the three appeals arise out of the same occurrence, facts and circumstances, they shall be disposed of by this single judgment.
3. .I have heard at length‑the counsel for the parties and have also the entire material available on the record.
4. The occurrence in these appeals is not disputed. A fight did take place between Muhammad Yasin and Gama Masih on 30‑6‑1976. First of all we have to see whether the charge of disorderly and riotous behaviour has been satisfactorily established against Muhammad Yasin and Gama Masih. It is an admitted fact that the fight between the two started at the spur of the moment without any premeditation. In other words, it was not a preplanned fight. Further it was a fight between two employees in which the Management was not in any way involved. Further it is not denied that the fight between two employees had no connection with the employment of the parties. There is nothing on the record to show that the fight in question in any way affected the production of the Mills.
5. After taking into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, in the light of the arguments advanced by the parties and authorities cited by them I have reached the conclusion that the impugned decision of the Labour Court in the case of Muhammad Yasin, re‑instating him without back benefits is perfectly correct and requires no interference by this Tribunal. Consequently, both the appeals filed by Muhammad Yasin and the Management fail and are hereby dismissed.
6. As regards the appeal of the Management against Gama Masih, the impugned decision of the Labour Court so far his re‑instatement is concerned, is perfectly correct. However, in the circumstances of the case, the Labour Court was not justified to grant him back benefits. Accordingly, this appeal is partly accepted and the impugned decision of the Labour Court is modified to the extent that Gama Masih shall not be paid hack benefits.
7. All the three appeals stand disposed of in the above terms.
Order accordingly.
