Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. MN-301 of 1979/pb., decided on 7^th July, 1982.

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

---S.0.15--Dismissal from service on. two charges of misconduct and negligence--Labour Court set aside order on ground that charges did not amount to misconduct and inclusions of three charges had vitiated entire proceedings--Tribunal accepted appeal holding that disorderly behaviour during working hours could not be left unnoticed otherwise it would be difficult for controlling authorities to supervise work of their subordinates and to take work from them.

Chan Pir Shah's case 1981 P L C 981 distinguished.

Mian Mohammad Yasin for Appellant.

Ch. Ghulam Qadir Cheema for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 28th June, 1982.

In this appeal the decision dated 11-4-1979 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.9, Multan has been challenged, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and he was directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.

2. The allegations against the respondent were that he had mis behaved before the Supervisor on 30-1-1978 and had again misbehaved before the Supervisor and Shift Incharge on 2-2-1978 and that on 1-2-1978 he had work with negligence. He was charge-sheeted. His reply to the charge-sheet was found unsatisfactory and, therefore, an enquiry was held, which culminated in his dismissal.

3. The learned lower court has held that the allegation that the respondent had worked with negligence did not amount to misconduct, inasmuch as there being only once instance, it was not habitual negligence, nor the charge was of such a negligence. The learned trial Judge also observed that the inclusion of the charge of working with negligence vitiated the proceedings of the entire case. He relied upon Chan Pir Shah's case 1981 P L C 981. He also opined that only disorderly behaviour amounted to misconduct, that disorderly behaviour means disturbance of peace and lawless behaviour reflecting on act which has some criminality. The evidence against the respondent is that when he was refused leave he used objectionable words and went to the extent of threatening his immediate boss saying that he would see to him outside the factory. In this manner the respondent disgraced his boss and it amounted to misbehviour, which is a misconduct. I cannot agree with the learned trial Judge that the act committed by the respondent did not amount to misconduct. Chan Pir Shah's case does not apply to this case, because only one charge did not amount to misconduct, whereas the other two charges amounted to misconduct and even if the charge of inefficient working had not been considered, the two charges were sufficient to record the punishment of dismissal. The dismissing authority was not prejudiced in its mind by the observation of the Enquiry Officer that the charge of negligence working amounted to misconduct. In cases where the offences proved do not amount to serious misconduct and the offences not proved amount to serious misconduct, of course the punishing authority is not prejudiced in his mind while prescribing the punishment. The respondent, therefore, was wrongly ordered to be reinstated. Disorderly behaviour during working hours by misbehaving and criminally intimidating the immediate officer cannot be left unnoticed, otherwise it would be difficult for the controlling authorities to supervise the work of their subordinates and to take work from them. I, therefore, accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower court, dismiss the grievance petition of the respondent.

M.I.

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.