Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Appeals Nos. BR‑290 and 306 of 1982, decided on 12th November, 1983.
‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑Scope ‑ Labour Court not an appellate authority ---Has no power to reduce punishment or substitute another kind of penalty.
‑‑ Ss. 2 (xxviii) (b) & 25‑A and West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 2(i)‑"Workman" ‑ Employee performing supervisory duties and drawing pay more than Rs. 800 per month‑Not doing any work with his own hands‑Not a workman‑Not entitled to invoke jurisdiction of Labour Court.
Saleem Baig for Appellant.
Respondent in Person.
Date of hearing: 7th November, 1983.
The two appeals captioned above arise from the decision dated 2nd May, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 8, Bahawalpur, whereby Nasrullah Khan (hereinafter to be described as the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service without back benefits. 1Bahawalnagar Sugar Mills (hereinafter to be called as the appellant) has challenged the direction of reinstatement, whereas the respondent has in his appeal, claimed bask benefits. As the two appeals arise from the same decision, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
2. The respondent was charge‑sheeted and dismissed after holding an enquiry against him on the ground that six Chhattanks of sugar were recovered from his possession at the out gate when he wanted to go out. The plea of the respondent was that he had removed the sugar for the preparation of tea and as he did not get time to do so, he put it into his pocket. The learned lower Court has held that the act of the respondent did not amount to misconduct but only violation of rules, so he did not deserve the maximum punishment of dismissal.
3. The learned lower Court has found the respondent guilty of an offence for which he was neither charged nor he actually committed. He did not say that he bad actually prepared tea. He pleaded that he had removed the sugar for preparation of tea in the factory. If he had prepared tea, he would have consumed the sugar instead of retaining it. So he did not commit the offence of preparing tea in the mills premise. He was not found actually removing the sugar from the mills premises.
He was detected at the gate when he wanted to cross it. His pocket was bulging out and this raised suspicion. Even if it be accepted that he had taken the sugar for the preparation of tea, yet he committed theft by removing it from the factory premises. Even his plea that he had removed sugar from the stock for the preparation of tea is false. He could have required at the most four or six teaspoon full and not 1 quarters of sugar. Again for the preparation of tea some quantity of milk is also required but there is no evidence that the respondent had with him milk also. If he did not get time to prepare tea what happened with the milk if he had procured at He did not say that he had taken the milk. This is thus more than clear that he bad stolen the sugar and was taking it home. He committed misconduct and was rightly dismissed.
4. The other thing is, that Courts are not appellate authority, so they have no power to reduce the punishment or substitute another kind of penalty.
5. The respondent was a supervisor with a basic pay of more than Rs. 800 being Rs. 810 and total emoluments Rs. 1,750 vide Exhs. R‑18 and R‑19 and evidence of RW‑2. So far as his duties are concerned RW‑3 said that coolies, helpers, Assistant Mate and Mate were subordinate of the supervisor. He has also said that the Mate takes work from others and supervisor orders the Mate and that the respondent did not do any work with his own hand. The respondent, no doubt, said that he used to work with his own hand but did not disclose the work or nature of work done by him. In cross‑examination he said that no worker was under him but conscience compelled him to admit at least this that off and on he gave direction to the workers. This off and on' is not under standable. He on account of working in supervisory capacity having his pay more than Rs. 800 was out of the pale of workman as defined in section 2(xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and on account of not working with his own hands was not covered by the definition of worker given in section (2)(i) of the Standing Orders B Ordinance, 1968 and thus the learned lower Court hand no jurisdiction.
6. As a result of what has been observed above, the appeal of the appel lant is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the grievance petition of the respondent is dismissed. As the very order of reinstatement has been set aside, no question of granting back benefits arises, so the appeal of the respondent is dismissed.
A. E. Orders accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer