Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. JG‑711 of 1981/Pb., decided on 24th March, 1982.

‑‑ Misconduct‑Dismissal for misconduct‑Workman put in such circumstances for which he could do only what had actually been done and treated as misconduct‑Such act, in circumstances, held, cannot be treated as misconduct‑Pantaloon of workman stained with red ink‑Workman removing his pantaloon, washing it and hanging same on chair and himself sitting wrapping round a piece of cloth used as loin cloth‑Dismissal for such act, in circumstances, held, rightly set aside by Labour Court without back benefits‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XX111 of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3).

Khalid Farooq Qureshi for Appellant.

Date of hearing : 31st January, 1982.

This appeal arises from the decision, dated 5th November, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent for his reinstatement was accepted and he was directed to be reinstated in service without back benefits.

The alleged misconduct for which the respondent was proceeded against and ultimately dismissed from service was that he during working hours had taken off his pantaloon, hanged it on the chair and sat wrapping round the waste a piece of cloth used as loin‑cloth. When Muhammad Alam Sharif, Store Officer, went there and he enquired from the respondent about his such a conduct, he replied that his colleagues had stained his pant, with red ink and, he, therefore, after washing it had placed it for being dried and was wearing a loin‑cloth. He was charge‑sheeted, and an enquiry held against him which culminated in his dismissal.

3. This is not denied that the pantaloon of the respondent hanging o the chair was not newly‑washed. The respondent was put in such circum stances for which he could do only what he had actually done. Since his pantaloon had been stained with red ink, if he bad moved out and had goner to his house, firstly he would have been befooled by his colleagues and then in the way by the passers by thinking that the pantaloon was stained with blood. Pantaloon can be stained with blood, if it is worn by a woman, by menses and if by a male on account of piles. The respondent, therefore, thought it fit to wash it and then to put it on and to perform his duty. The charge is not that he was neglecting his work. In these circumstances, he was rightly re‑instated in service by the learned lower Court without back benefits. Them s no force in the appeal which is dismissed in limine.

A. E.

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.