Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 Sections 25A, 36 and 38 of the Complaint should not be recorded by the Labor Court against doctrine and remarks against a person or organization unless they decide to file an employee or worker's complaint. Do not explain or give the witness the opportunity to be examined by the Labor Court. In such cases the CBAC may apply to extend such remarks, as witnessed against
Appeal No. KAR‑386 of 1982, heard on 7th November, 1982.
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑--
--‑‑Ss. 25‑A, 36 & 38‑Grievance petition‑Adjudication by Labour Court‑Observation and remarks ‑Not to be recorded against a per son or institution unless he or it given opportunity of explanation or examined as witness‑Labour Court while adjudicating grievance petition of a workman making observations against C.B.A.‑C. B. A. in circumstances, held, could apply for expungment of such remarks.
Inayatullah Butt v. Cantonment Board P L D 1957 Lah. 583, ref.
Nayab Naqvi for Appellant.
Date of hearing : 7th November, 1982.
DECISION
This appeal is directed against the decision of the learned First Labour Court, given on 17th August, 1982 allowing the grievance petition of the appellant to the extent of directing his re‑instatement in service but denying him back benefits.
2. The appellant, who was an employee of the respondent Trust and also an office‑bearer of the Hamdard (Trust) Employees' Union, the C. B. A. in the respondent Trust, was charge‑sheeted on 30th June, 1940 for abusing and assaulting co‑worker, Muhammad Hanif, on the previous date. An enquiry, based on the above charges, was held against the appellant and ultimately he was dismissed from service, vide order, dated 9th November, 1980. The appellant challenged the orders of his dismissal before the' learned First Labour Court which has directed his re‑instatement in service but has denied him back benefits.
3. Mr. Nayab Naqvi, the learned representative of the appellant, has assailed the impugned decision of the learned Labour Court on two counts. His first contention was that the appellant was entitled to back benefits and that the rejection by the learned Labour Court of the appellant's claim for back benefits was not justified in the circumstances of the case. It may be stated that in the domestic enquiry, the version of Muhammad 'Hanif, the person who had complained against the appellant was that the appellant had .abused him outside the gate of the factory at a pan shop and had called him "stooge of checker Muhammad Saeed, in the presence of one Syed Akhtar Hussain. It was further claimed by Muhammad Hanif that when he questioned the appellant in this behalf, the latter attacked him and in consequence he sustained injury. The learned Labour Court considered that sine: the factum of the fight was admitted the sole issue which arose for consideration was which party was the aggressor. It found that no weapon was used by either party and that the two parties had pushed each other in consequence of which the appellant had fallen ors a piece of bottle and received an injury on his foot. It appears that in that fight Muhammad Hanif also sustained an injury. The case of the appellant, on the other hand, was that he was being victimized by the management on account of his union activities and several charge‑sheets and warning letters have been issued/served upon him. The learned Labour Court rejected that contention of the appellant mainly on the consideration that no action had been taken against the appellant on the basis of the previous charge sheets which suggested that the management was not actuated by 'motive of malice. The yearned Labour Court, however, came to the conclusion that even on the basis of the evidence before the Enquiry Officer, it appeared to be clear that both parties were responsible for the fight and in the circumstances the appellant alone could not be penalised by dismissing him from service. It was on this basis, that both parties were responsible for the fight, that the learned Labour Court refused the appellant his back benefits. It was, however, contended by Mr. Naqvi that in fact it was Muhammad Hanif who had started the fight and first assaulted,,. the appellant and the appellant had merely tried to defend himself The evidence before the Enquiry Officer does not support his contention. In the first place there is evidence of Syed Akhtar Hussain to the effect that the appellant had abused Muhammad Hanif and called him a "stooge" of checker Muhammad Saeed outside the gate of the factory at a pan shop. It further appears than; ,when Muhammad Hanif enquired from the appellant why he had abused him there was first an altercation between the parties and then both of them engaged in a fight in which the two parties sustained minor injuries. On this point there is not only the evidence of Muhammad Hanif and Muhammad Rasheed but even the defence witness, Muhammad Zaki, has admitted that both parties had grappled with each other. According to his testimony he saw both the parties standing in front of each other for the purposes of fighting with each other. On a careful appraisal of the above evidence although it might be conceded, as held by the learned Labour Court, that the appellant was not the aggressor in the fight, it appears that the appellant had abused Muhammad Hanif outside the factory gate calling him stooge" of checker Muhammad Saeed and, thereafter, both of the had indulged in a fight. In the circumstances the learned Labour Court rightly disallowed the claim of back benefits to the appellant. It might be mentioned that though the appellant had abused Muhammad Hanif outside the gate of the factory the abuses were in connection with Muhammad Hanif's work in the factory.
4. The other ground on which Mr. Nayab Naqvi assailed the impugned decision was that the learned Labour Court had made observations against the C, B. A. in the respondent establishment, which observations are not. warranted Since the observations hate been made against the workers union is for the workers' union to apply for the expungment of the said remarks and observations. I might only add that the basic rule a that no observation should be made against a person or an institu tion unless he or it has been given an opportunity of explaining his or its case or he or it has been examined as a witness. See Inayatulloh Butt v. Cantonment Board (P L D 1957 Lah: 583).
