Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑293 of 1982, heard on 5th August, 1982.

West Pakistan

‑‑S. O. 15 (3) (h)‑Misconduct‑Acts subversive of discipline- Maligning management and Provincial and Federal Government at a function arranged in honour of foreign delegation‑Most serious act. subversive of discipline amounting to misconduct‑Dismissal for such misconduct, held, justified.

Shafique Qurshi for Appellant.

Date of hearing : 5th August, 1982.

DECISION

The appellant, who was employed as a technical assistant in the respondent establishment and was also holding the office of shop steward, was served with a charge‑sheet, dated 10‑5‑1980, containing the following allegations :‑

"(a) On 5th May, 1980 a team of 18 Malayasian Trade Union representatives sponsored by Government of Sind visited the K.S.E.W. The visitors were accompanied by the Director Labour, F' t' ‑ Government of Sind and Joint Director Labour Government of Sind. On conclusion of their visit to K.S.E.W. they were given lunch in one of the Canteens. You were invited alongwith the guests.

(b) After the lunch, when the representative of the Malayasian Trade Unionists spoke expressing their appreciation for the hospitality extended to them and also presented a Souvenir of the Team to the K.S.E.W., you stood up and began addressing the visitors. You made derogatory remarks not only against the Management, but also against the Government of Sind and the Government of Pakistan falsely alleging inhuman behaviour on their part toward the workers who according to you were being allegedly deprived of their legitimate rights and privileges. Continuing your speech, you made baseless accusations against the Government of Sind and various functionaries of the Government of Pakistan, falsely accusing them of forcing workers to work under most barbaric working conditions and added that everything which was shown to the visitors was false and stage‑managed as against the inhuman working conditions prevailing. You also requested the visiting Malayasian delegates to take a note of the inhuman behaviour of Government of Sind and Government of Pakistan toward workers and .to carry this message to the Malayasian Government and to the Workers in Malaysia to inform them of so‑called actual conditions prevailing in Pakistan in general and in the Karachi Shipyard and Engineering works in particular (c) By delivering the said speech unauthorisedly before foreign delegates and indulging in this hostile outburst against the Management and decrying the Government of Sind and Government of Pakistan before foreign representatives you have committed an act subversive of discipline which is tantamount to gross‑misconduct on your part. "

In his lengthy explanation to the charge‑sheet, dated 12‑5‑1980, the appellant admitted having made a speech at the lunch for the Malayasian delegation on 5‑5‑1980 but contended that he was compelled to make the speech at the instance of the Management. Furthermore he submitted in his explanation that he had not criticised or maligned either the Federal Government or the Government of Sind but had only touched upon some of the problems and happenings in the Karachi Shipyard. As the explanation was not found satisfactory a domestic enquiry was ordered against him which was held from 26‑5‑1980 upt6 28‑6‑1980. In the domestic enquiry, the management examined (1) M. H. Siddiqui, (2) Ahsan Javaid and (3) Noor Muhammad in support of their allegations against the appellant while the appellant examined himself and Iftikharul Haq in his defence. The Enquiry Officer, Irshad Khan. found the charges against the appellant fully established and accordingly, he submitted such a report to the management. On the basis of his report a second show‑cause notice, dated 9‑7‑1980, was served upon the appellant and also he was given an opportunity of personal hearing before the General Manager (Ship Design), under whom the appellant was working: The appellant submitted a very lengthy explanation covering 27 pages but as the same was not found satisfactory he was dismissed from service, vide letter, dated 17‑7‑1980.

2. The appellant preferred grievance petition before the learned Fifth Labour Court. Before the learned Labour Court the appellant examined himself while on behalf of the management Sultan Ejaz Pervez, Manager Industrial Relations in the respondent establishment and Irshad Khan, who held the domestic enquiry against the appellant, were examined. The record of the domestic enquiry proceedings as well as the various explanations submitted by the appellant to the management were produced. The learned Labour Court repelled the contentions made on behalf of the appellant that the charge‑sheet was not legal and that the enquiry proceedings were vitiated by the non‑examination of independent witnesses and has held that the allegations contained in the charge‑sheet, which constitute misconduct for the purposes of clause (3) of Standing Order 15, were fully established against the appellant. On these findings it dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant. The appellant has, accordingly, come up ,in appeal to this Tribunal.

3 I have heard Mr. Shafique Qureshi, the learned counsel for the appellant. His first contention was that the charge‑sheet against the appellant does not‑ constitute misconduct for the purposes of clause (3) of. Standing Order 1.5. He argued that the allegations contained in the charge sheet do not indicate that the appellant was guilty of riotous or disorderly , behaviour during working hours‑ at the respondent establishment. This, however, was not the allegation against the appellant. I have, in the very first paragraph of this judgment, reproduced the acts of misconduct alleged against the appellant. These allegations, in brief, are that at a lunch given by the respondent establishment to a Malayasian Delegation the appellant made derogatory remark not only against the respondent establishment but also against Government of Sind and the Government of Pakistan falsely alleging inhuman behaviour on their part towards the workers, who, according to him, were being deprived of their legitimate rights and privileges. These allegations and the other allegations made in the charge sheet constitute, in my humble opinion; most serious acts subversive of discipline falling under the second part of item (h) of clause (3) of Standing Order 15. I can hardly imagine an act more subversive of discipline than maligning the establishment and the Government of the country at a function arranged in honour of a foreign delegation. Even if the appellant had legitimate grievance against the establishment or the Government, a lunch hosted in honour of a foreign delegation representing Labour and Trade Unions was clearly not the place to ventilate or to. give expression to such grievances.

4. It was contended by the appellant that he was compelled by the management to make the speech and did not make the speech voluntarily. This is strongly denied by the witnesses examined by the management, but even if it were to be assumed for argument's sake that the appellant was asked by the management to make a reply speech to . the speech of the Malayasian Delegation this did not entitle the appellant to make serious allegations against the respondent establishment and his own Government in the presence of a foreign trade unions delegation.

5. It was next submitted by Mr. Shafique Qureshi that the appellant did not make any allegation either against the Government of Sind or the Government of Pakistan and only touched in his speech upon the condition of‑workmen in the respondent establishment and some of their problems. According to the learned counsel action was taken against the appellant because he did not praise the management, which fact made the management hostile against him. I find no force in this contention. The proceedings against the. appellant were initiated on the complaint made by Mr. M. H, Siddiqui, Deputy Manager (Works), which complaint was made on the very day of the incident The said complaint is very material and reads as follows :‑

"(1).Today, the 5th May, 1980 arrangements were made as per your instructions to receive the Malayasian Trade Union' representatives whose visit to K.S.E.W. was sponsored by the Government of Sind. Arrangements for lunch to the visiting team in M.E.A.'s Canteen were also made. All the Shop Stewards were invited to take lunch with. the visiting team. Besides the Shop Stewards .D.S.P. (Training) and Manager (Public Relations) were also invited. Messrs Noor Muhammad, Clerk and Ashiq, Sub‑Inspector Sanitation (Canteen) were deputed to supervise the service of lunch.

(2) The visiting team reached K.S.E.W. at about 12‑15 hours. Director Labour, Joint Director (Labour) along with one Labour Officer of Directorate of Labour, Government of Sind accompanied the visiting team. After introduction of tyre visitors to the Managing Director and other representatives of the management, the visiting team took a round of the K.S.E.W. After taking a round of various shops of K.S.E.W. the visiting team came for lunch to the M.E.A's. Canteen where they were introduced to the Shop Stewards and lunch was served to the guests as well as the Shop Stewards.

(3) After the lunch was over, the representatives of the Malayasian Trade Unionists spoke expressing their appreciation for the hospitality extended to them and also presented a souvenir of the team to K.S.E.W. Immediately after the presentation of the souvenir and termination of the speech, one Mr. Akhtar Alam, Technical Assistant Grade III of Drawing Office (Hull), stood up and started addressing the visitors. In the course of his speech he made derogatory remarks not only against the Management but also against the Government of Sind and the Government of Pakistan alleging inhuman behaviour on their parts towards workers. According to him they were being deprived of their legitimate rights and privileges. Continuing his speech he, made baseless allegations against the Government of Sind and various functionaries of Government of Pakistan falsely accusing them of forcing workers to work under most barbaric working conditions. He continued saying that every thing which had been shown to the visitors was false and stage managed as against the inhuman working conditions prevailing. He also requested the visitors of the Malayasian Trade. Union delegation to take note of the inhuman behaviour of the Government of Sind and Government of Pakistan towards workers and carry this message to the Malayasian Government and to the workers in Malayasia to inform them the actual conditions prevailing in Pakistan in general and in the Karachi Shipyard and Engineering Works Limited in particular.

4. It is submitted that such an outburst against the management and the Government of Sind and Government of Pakistan by a Shipyard worker being highly objectionable and uncalled for has put K. S. E. W. as well as the host Government in an awkward position.

Submitted please." ,

6. Mr. .M. H. Siddiqui was examined before the Enquiry Officer and he reiterated the allegations which he had made against the appellant in his complaint. According to Mr. Siddiqui the appellant, in his speech in question inter alia stated as follows :‑

"Pakistanis and. Malaysians are brothers and if any Pakistani is in trouble then that should be naturally felt in Malayasia. Labourers in Pakistan are suffering cruelties since last 30 years. Their working conditions are extremely poor and their salaries are so meagre that they cannot properly feed their children. Their dwellings are dirty arid without necessities of life. Their correct position can be assessed from their weak bodies and discontented/depressed faces. Whatever, has been shown to delegation is just an eye‑wash and exhibitory. He further stated that treatment also with the workers of K.S.E. W. is extremely cruel, insultive and inhuman and the Government of Sind, whose offices are present, are equal participant in this cruel and barbaric system. In the same. way Mr. Akhtar Alain also blamed Government of Pakistan for not doing anything for labourers. Mr. Akhtar Alam particularly addressing the members of Malayasian Trade Union delegation, who knew Urdu, asked to note all these things and communicate. to Malayasian Government such that they pressurise and influence Government of Pakistan for improvement of conditions of labourers in Pakistan."

7. According to Mr. Siddiqui, the lunch given to the Malayasian Delegation, which was started in a very cordial and goodwill atmosphere, was closed in a very tense and bad atmosphere. Mr. Siddiqui was fully supported b two other witnesses examined by the management. Mr. Javaid Ahsan, D. Z P. (Training) and Mr. Noor Muhammad, Clerk, Sultan Ejaz Pervez, Manager Industrial Relations in the respondent establishment, who was admittedly present at the lunch, was examined before the learned Labour Court and he also fully' supported the allegations against the appellant.

8. As already stated, the appellant has not denied making the speech in question. No doubt no record has been produced as none appears to have been maintained of the full speech made by the appellant but some of the statements made by the appellant during the speech were remembered by the witnesses, particularly Mr. M. H. Siddiqui, ‑ who made report of the incident on the very day, to the management. The expressions which the appellant employed in his speech paint a very dismal picture of the conditions of labour in Pakistan particularly in the respondent establish ment. Such a speech made in the presence of a foreign delegation cannot but tend to create a very bad impression in the minds of the foreign visitors about the working of respondent establishment and would not only tend to undo the good impression which the management wanted to create on the foreign‑delegation but act in a wholly reverse direction. The speech in question, therefore, appears to me to be an act grossly subversive of discipline. 1, therefore, find no merit in this appeal and would dismiss the same in limine.

Appeal 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.