Find a Lawyer

Appeals Nos. KAR. 250 and 263 of 1982, heard on 12th July, 1982

West Pakistan

‑‑S. 15 (3) (a)‑Misconduct‑Inability or failure to comply with an order of superior for reason of want of skill or experience‑Does not amount to misconduct‑Workman despite attempts failing to comply with order for putting a machine in order‑Held, could not be consi dered a guilty of disobedience of lawful and reasonable order amounting to misconduct.

Masood Ahmad Khan for the Management.

Shafiq Qureshi for the Worker.

Date of hearing : 12th July, 1982.

These 2 appeals, one by the management and the other by the worker, are both directed against the decision given by the learned IIIrd Labour Court on 15‑4‑1982, on the grievance petition filed by the worker. Shireen Khan, challenging his dismissal from service by the management. By the impugned decision the learned Labour Court has directed the management to re‑instate workman Shireen Khan in service but has rejected the workman's claim for award of back benefits. The management has appealed against the direction for re‑instatement in service of Shireen Khan while the latter has appealed against the rejection of his claim of back benefits. Both the appeals are being disposed of by this Order.

2. The facts of this case, shortly stated, are that Shireen Khan has been in the employment of Star Textile Mills Ltd., the appellant in Appeal No. KAR‑250.80, since 22‑2‑1979. It appears that he was initially employed in the said mills as a Weaver but was later on appointed as Beam Pieeer. On 21‑8‑1981, the fly shuttle of loom No. 186 flew out' and struck against loom No. 209. This mishap is said to have been caused on account of the failure of Shireen Khan to properly tie the beam of loom No. 186 and check the same, despite specific instructions in this behalf given to him from time to time. It is further alleged that though Shireen Khan was instructed by the Shift Incharge, Abdul Razzaq, to put the loom in order and properly tie the beam of loom No. 186, he failed to do so and hence jobber Muhammad Miskeen had to be called into repair the loom and to put it into working order. A charge‑sheet containing the twin charges of habitual negli gence in work and wilful disobedience of lawful and reasonable orders of his superiors, was served upon Shireen Khan in respect of the above matter. A domestic enquiry based upon the above charge‑sheet was held in which statements of Abdul Razzaq, Shift Incharge ; Muhammad Bashir, Jobber; Mohammad Miskeen, Line Jobber ; and Abdul Qadir, Line Jobber, were recorded on behalf of the management, while Shireen Khan himself was examined on behalf of the workman. On the basis of this domestic enquiry, Shireen Khan was dismissed from service, vide letter, dated 17.1‑1981. Shireen Khan challenged the orders of his dismissal before the learned Labour Court which has given the impugned decision.

3. I have heard Mr. Masood Ahmad Khan, the learned counsel for the Star Textile Mills Ltd., and Mr. Shafiq Qureshi, who appeared for the workman, Shireen Khan.

4. As already stated, the dismissal orders of workman Shireen Khan are based on 2 separate acts of misconduct, firstly, that he was habitually negligent in his work, and secondly, that he was guilty of disobedience of lawful and reasonable orders of his superiors. Although Mr. Masood Ahmad Khan has strongly urged that workman Shireen Khan had committed disobedience of the direction given to him by the Shift Incharge, Abdul Razzaq, to put loom No. 186 in order and to start it, 1 am not inclined to agree with his submission. Disobedience of lawful and reasonable order as contemplated by Item (a) of clause (3) of Standing Order 15 implies refusal to carry out such an order. Mere inability or failure on the part of workman to comply with an order of a superier by reason of want of skill or experience or some other reasons of similar nature would not constitute,' disobedience of the orders of superior for the purposes of the above item. It is true that workman Shireen Khan was directed by the Shift Incharge to put the loom in order and to start the same. The evidence on the record shows that on returning from the canteen, where he had evidently gone during the rest interval, he had been continuously working on the loom for about 3 hours up to 8‑30, but he was unable to put the loom in order. It was there after that the Shift Incharge and to call line jobber, Muhammad Miskeen, who sent for 2 pieces of leather through Shireen Khan and started the loom after placing these pieces of leather under the loom so as to evenly balance its load. Even if this device and practice was within the knowledge of worker Shirin Khan, he ma not have thought of it while attempting to put the loom in order. The very fact that he was working on the loom for about 3 hours, shows that he was attempting to carry out the orders of the Shift Incharge but either by reason of want of ability or failure to recollect the correct action required, he was unable to put the loom in order and to start the same. His action, therefore, cannot be considered to constitute disobedience of the order given to him by the Shift Incharge.

5. As regards the other charge against worker Shireen Khan namely, that he had been habitually negligent in the discharge of his work, there is only the bare word of the Shift incharge, Abdul Razzaq, that he had been giving verbal warnings to Shirin Khan regarding his negligent working It is not known when these lapses were committed by Shireen Khan or when the warnings were given to him. The warnings were given to him to check the work done by him. There is nothing to indicate that on the date of the incident. Shireen Khan had neglected to check his work after binding the beam of loom No. 209. At least no positive evidence on this point has come on record.

6. In the circumstances, I would agree with the findings of the learned Labour Court that the 2 charges against workman Shirin Khan have not been established. I would further agree with the view taken by the learned Labour Court that it was at least the inefficient working of Shirin Khan that resulted in the shuttle flying out of loom No. 196 and colliding with loom No. 209. This was a serious accident and could have resulted in grave bodily harm to any person within the range of the flying shuttle. As such though the charge of habitual negligence is not established against workman, Shirin Khan, it is clear that he was inefficient in his working, at least on the date of the incident, for not only the beam of the loom was not securely tied but further Shireen Khan ineffectively wasted 3‑4 hours in attempting to put the loom in order.

7. For the reasons discussed by me above, I would uphold the decision of the learned Labour Court and would dismiss both the appeals.

Appeals dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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