Find a Lawyer

West Pakistan

--‑‑ S. O. 15 (3)(i)‑Habitual neglect of work‑Clerk required to post daily entries in register‑Work found to be pending for 11 months- Repeatedly warned for wasting time‑Rightly charged of misconduct of habitual neglect of work.

Najab Naqvi for Appellant.

Masood Mirza for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 22nd September, 1982.

This appeal is directed against the decisions of the learned 1st Labour Court, given on Ist June, 1982; dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant workman.

2. The appellant, who is said to have been in the employment of the respondent Trust since 11th January, 1969, was lastly posted as clerk, Murrakkabat Department B' Section, for doing ledger work. It appears that he was required to post the daily entries in 5 registers. On 24th June, 1980, Mr. Atiqur Rehman took over its incharge from Mr. Fasihuddin. On checking the work and the registers incharge of the appellant, he found that the entries in the said registers have been posted only upto March,. 1980. He accordingly submitted a report to this effect to the Production Manager. Later Mr. Khurshid Hassan himself examined the registers incharge of the appellant and finding the report of Mr. Atiqur Rehman well‑founded asked the latter to make a report in this behalf to the higher authorities of the Trust. Accordingly, on 6th July, 1980, and again on 7th July, '30, Mr. Atiqur Rehman submitted reports in this behalf to the Principal ‑Execu tive Officer. On the basis of these reports the following charge‑sheet, dated 10th July, 1980, was served upon the appellant :‑

"Mr. Nazar Ahmed,

Clerk, Murrakkabat B'.

Subject : Charge‑sheet

It has been reported that due to neglect of work on your part the ledger work is pending since April, 1980 and it has become difficult to draw the balances correctly for want of entries in the records.

You ate, therefore, charge‑sheeted for your above misconduct under sec tion 15 (5) (3) (i) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Services (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, and hereby directed to submit your explanation within 72 hours from receipt hereof.",

3. In his lengthy reply, dated 14th July, 1980, the appellant ‑admitted that his work was in arrears for 1 i months but gave certain reasons for the work being in arrears. His explanation, however, was‑ not found satisfac tory by the management and accordingly a domestic enquiry was ordered against him. Mr. Muhammad Ali Siddiqui was appointed as the enquiry officer and he held enquiry against the appellant from 21st July, 1980 to 3rd November, 1980. In the domestic enquiry, Mr. Atiqur Rehman (Incharge Murrakkabat Section) and Mr. Khurshid Hassan (Divisional Manager Pro duction) were examined in support of the charge against the appellant while Khalid Farooqi and Marghoob Armed were examined as fence witnesses. The statement of the appellant was also recorded by the enquiry officer who summoned different records at the request of the appellant, in order to satisfy himself whether the explanations submitted by the appellant for his failure to maintain the record up to date were well‑founded. The enquiry officer in his lengthy report held the charge against the appellant established and on the basis of his report the appellant was dismissed from service vide order, dated 29th November 1980. This order was also published in the daily 'Aman' of 30th November, 1980.

4. The appellant preferred a grievance petition before the learned 1st Labour Court against his dismissal from‑ service. In his grievance petition he alleged that he had been victimized on account of his trade union acti vities as he was the Propaganda Secretary of the collective bargaining agent in the respondent Trust. He denied that the charge of misconduct had been established against him and accused the enquiry officer of being prejudiced against him and of filing up the blanks and lacunae in the management's case against him. The learned Labour Court, in its impugned decision, repelled the various contentions of the appellant and dismissed the grievance petition.

5. I have heard Mr. Nayab Naqvi, the learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Masood Mirza, who appeared for the respondent Trust. Mr. Nayab Naqvi assailed the impugned decision on the following grounds :‑

(a) That the allegations against the appellant as contained in the charge‑sheet were not established.

(b) That the appellant had given satisfactory explanation and cogent reasons for not being able to keep his registers in his charge upto date.

(c) That the enquiry officer was prejudiced against the appellant and the enquiry was not fair or impartial.

(d) That in any case the acts established against the appellant do not constitute misconduct entailing dismissal from service.

6. Elaborating his arguments in support of his first contention, it was submitted by Mr. Nayab Naqvi that the complaints made by Atiqur Rehman against the appellant are contradictory and do not indicate that the appellant bad failed to maintain his registers for the months of April, May and June, 1980, as alleged in the charge‑sheet. As already stated the first report made against the appellant by Atiqur Rehman is dated 28th June, 1980 and it was made to the Production Manager. In that complaint, Mr. Atiqur Rehman had expressly stated that when he took over as Incharge of the Murrakkabat Section, the work of posting entries in the registers in the charge of the appellant had been done only upto the month of March, 1980, and that the present position was that the work for May and June was pending. In his letter, dated 6th July, 1980, to the Principal Executive Officer of the respon dent Trust, Mr. Atiqur Rehman reiterated the position that when he took over as Incharge of the Murrakkabat Section, the entries in the ledgers had been posted upto March, 1980, but entries for months of April, May and June had been posted. In his subsequent letter, dated 7th July, 1980, addressed to the Principal Executive Officer, Mr. Atiqur Rehman clarified that at present the posting of entries in ledgers for the months of April, May and June, 1980, which was pending, was being done. An examination of these letters clearly indicates that the appellant had completed the work of posting entries in the ledgers only upto March, 1980, and the work for the months of April, May and June was pending and was still being done. Mr. Atiqur Rehman is supported not only by Production Manager, Mr. Khurshid Hassan, who was examined by the enquiry officer but also the enquiry who himself examined the record and found that upto the time when Mr. Atiqur Rehman had checked the registers, the entries therein had been completed upto the month of March, 1980. It may further be pointed out that even the appellant, in his explanation, dated 14th July, 1980, to the charge‑sheet, had admitted that the posting of entries in the ledgers in his charge remained to be done for 1 J months. As such, even on the admission of the appellant himself, the charge of failure to post the entries for a substantial period against the appellant has been established.

7. Mr. Nayab Naqvi strongly submitted that the appellant had given satisfactory explanation for his inability to post the entries in the ledgers in his charge upto date. The appellant in his explanation has argued 4 grounds for his failure to complete the registers. They are :‑

(1) That 8 days were taken by him in stock checking, which was really not a part of his work ;

(2) That overtime work was being done in the Murrakkabat Section, due to which the work and ledger writing had increased and as he was not included in the overtime scheme, he was unable to cope up with the increased work ;

(3) That he was an office‑bearer of the C. B. A. and in that capacity he had to attend several meetings called by the Director, Labour, which consumed considerable time ; and

(4) That he was on leave during. the period of 1‑1‑1980 to 30‑6‑1980. for 22 days.

8. No doubt, the appellant had taken part in the stock checking but this was done in the month of January. Furthermore the total number of days on which the stock checking was done by the appellant was 5 days and not 8 days as contended by Mr. Nayab Naqvi. It has been explained by Mr. Atiqur Rehman that as Ledger Clerk, it was part of the duties of the appellant to do stock checking. Even, if this assertion of Mr. Atiqur Rehman is not correct, since stock checking was done in January, it should not have prevented the appellant from writing his registers upto date in the month of June.

9, It has been explained by Mr. Atiqur Rehman in the enquiry pro ceedings that there was no overtime system in the Murrakkabat Section but there was an incentive scheme, which did not apply to the appellant as his work did not increase due to increased production by the workers in the Section, since only a single figure of the total production was passed on to him a single entry had been made in this behalf. I am inclined to accept this evidence of Mr. Atiqur Rehman. If only a single figure was passed on to the appellant of the Production in the Section and he had to make a single entry in the register in his charge, it was immaterial whether the workers produced 100 packagest articles or 1,000. No doubt, previously there was overtime system in the Murrakkabat Section and the appellant was covered by the said system. It appears that by the introduction of the incentive scheme, on the non-application thereof to him, he felt himself aggrieved and, therefore, reported to go‑slow work‑in order to pressurize the management to include him in the incentive scheme.

10. I am also not impressed by the contention that by reason of the appellant being an office‑bearer of the collective bargaining agent and having participated in the meetings with officers of the Directorate of Labour, he was unable to cope up with his duties which thus fell in arrears. The enquiry officer had sent for the record of these meetings and found that the appellant had remained out of the factory on account of such meetings for a total period of 23 hours. He, in my opinion, rightly considered that this period was' insufficient to explain the failure on the part of the appellant to write and post the entries in the ledgers for a period of 3 months.

11. I am equally unimpressed by the contention that the leave taken by the appellant during the period of Ist January to 30th June, 1980, was responsible for or contributed to the failure on the part of the appellant to write his ledger upto date. It appears that during this entire period of 6 months, the appellant availed of casual leave on different dates for a total period of 22 days. Though the number of days on which the appellant took casual leave during this period is unusually large, yet this does not explain why the appellant failed to keep the accounts upto date for a period of, 3 months. That the work assigned to the appellant was not very onerous is established by the fact that before the enquiry proceedings were commenced on 21st July, 1980, the appellant had cleared up the pending work upto 19th June, 1980. If the appellant in a period of 10 days was able to complete the work of 21 months or even of over 1 month assuming that the appellant's assertion is correct that his work was in arrears for only 1J months, there is no reason why the appellant's work was at all in arrears.

12. It appears, as already indicated; that on account of the non‑inclusion of the appellant in the incentive scheme the appellant had kept his work in arrears to pressurize the management to include him in this scheme. Strong support to this inference is given by the warning letter, dated 8th March, 1980, issued to the appellant to the effect that despite repeated warnings, he had been found loitering about. and neglecting his work. In his letter, dated 3rd March, 1980, addressed to the Personnel Executive of the respondent Trust, requesting that the warning issued to him vide letter dated 8th March, 1980, be withdrawn, the appellant had admitted that a number of previous warnings had also been issued to him. This indicates that the appellant bad been in the habit of loitering about and neglecting the work.

13. Mr. Nayab Naqvi sought to base his contention that the enquiry officer was prejudiced against the appellant by reason of the fact that the enquiry officer had disallowed certain questions which the appellant wanted to put to Mr. Atiqur Rahman. I find that the enquiry officer had disallowed 4 questions out of the very large number of questions put by the appellant to Mr. Atiqur Rahman. These questions were rightly disallowed by the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer, far from being prejudiced against the appellant, was unusually accommodating and had sent for various record from the offices of the respondent Trust at the request of the appellant, though an objection was made by the witness against the production of the office record. The appellant was assisted in the domestic enquiry by the General Secretary of the Union. Both the appellant and the General Secretary had signed each and every page of the enquiry proceedings without raising any objection of making any allegation against the impartiality of the enquiry officer. I am satisfied that the enquiry officer has conducted the enquiry proceedings fairly and impartially.

14. It remains to be considered whether the charges of habitual negli gence of work on the part of the appellant had been established. As already pointed out, the appellant was found to have failed to post entries in the registers in his charge for the months of April, May and June, 1980.. These entries were required to be made by the appellant daily. The appellant thus appears to have neglected his work over considerable period. Even if the version of the appellant is accepted that his work was pending for 1 months, this indicates that he was habitually negligent in the discharge of his duties, as work over such long period could not be pending unless the appellant had neglected the same.

15. The upshot of the above discussion is that I find no merit in this appeal, concur in the finding of the learned Labour Court and dismiss the appeal.

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.