Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR‑753/Pb., of 1981, decided on 13th June, 1983.

West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑

‑‑ S. 15 (3) (a)‑Misconduct‑Refusal to obey every kind of order Does not amount to misconduct‑Order must be reasonable Non‑technical Worker ordered to do a work involving technical know how for which he was not employed‑Such order, held, not legal and reasonable and its non‑compliance would not amount to misconduct ‑ Impugned order of dismissal for allegedly not obeying order to do such work, in circumstances, set aside by Appellate Tribunal ‑ Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969). Ss. 25‑A

M. S. Bokhari for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 31st May, 1983.

The appeal captioned above emanates from the decision dated 29th November, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement in service was dismissed.

2. The allegation against the appellant was that he was asked by the Supervisor to do the work of core assembling but he refused. There is no denying the fact that the appellant refused to work as core assembler. Refusal to obey every kind of order is not miscon duct, according to Standing Order 15 (3) (a) of Standing Orders Ordi nance, 1968. The orders must be lawful and reasonable. Work of trans‑IA former construction is technical. Some Labour cases involve technicalities and they cannot be ignored. Previously I had discussed technical points in a railway case as it was necessary to have correct approach to the case. Such points are not easily understandable. The case was reman ded by the High Court in writ jurisdiction. If technical points are ignored, great miscarriage of justice is likely to be caused. Work of transformer construction involves technical as much as non‑technical duties. If the work of technical nature is entrusted to a non‑technical man, who even does not know elementary things, obviously he would spoil the whole thing and will be shunted out. It was on this ground that the appellant had refused to do the work of core assembling. As stated by him in answer to the charge sheet, he used to work at the channel seat. Channel is a kind of frame in which the transformer after being manufactured is placed and frame is then mounted by means of bolts and nuts according to requirement. This work does not involve mach of technicalities. Channels are prepared according to the size and specification given to the workers. But core assembling is sufficiently technical. Electric iron sheets are cut usually into the shape of Is and Es and after winding is done, on the former the Is and Es. are assembled in the former in a manner that the middle leg of Es is placed inside the former alternatively and upper and lower legs of Es remain over the winding and Is are placed before the open end of Es alternatively. Pressure is given to the core so that the required number of core should be housed in the former. If an un-experienced man is deputed to do this work, he is opt to make mistakes and will not succeed in housing total number of cores in the former, with the result that the performance and efficiency of the transformer will be poor. The Es and Is, mentioned above, are called core and the process of housing of the core in the former is called core assem bling. The appellant being a non‑technical person could not bring the above‑mentioned facts in evidence and it was not in the interest of the respondent to bring the said facts on the record. From the very beginning the stand of the appellant was that he did not know the work of core assembling, but nobody cared for it. His stand is that in order to shunt him out he was asked to do this work. No doubt the appellant said in cross‑examination that the work of core assembling is taken from the helpers and assistant fitters, but this admission does not adversely affect the case of the appellant. If the helpers and assistant fitters know the work of core assembling, they may have been deputed to do it, but there is no evidence that the appellant knows this work. Per chance I know the technology and it is my duty to examine the case in the light of technical duty to save the appellant from the injustice done to him at the hands of the respondent. The order of the supervisor in the circumstances mentioned above was not, a legal and reasonable order and its non‑compliance does not amount to misconduct. The appellant did not disobey it with any contemptuous intention, but on account of his incapability to do it. The appellant has not been employed to do the work for which he' was ordered. One should be asked to do a work which he is in a position to do and knows how to do it.

3. As a result of the observation s made above, I accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, direct the reinstatement of the appellant in service. However, in the circumstances of the case, I do not propose to allow back benefits to the appellant.

A. E. Appeal accepted

Find a Lawyer Near You

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