Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. Kar. .454 of 1983, heard on 18th December, 1984.

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

‑‑‑S.O. 15(3)(h)‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss.25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Disorderly behaviour‑‑"A" a worker allegedly going to Time‑keeper and asking him to verify his attendance dishonestly and on refusal of Time‑keeper "B" another worker accompanying A beating Time‑keeper‑‑Both dismissed on charge of disorderly behaviour‑‑Charge of dishonest verification of attendance against A not proved and allegation of instigating "B" for beating Time‑keeper against "A" also not established‑‑"A" in circumstances, held, not guilty of disorderly behaviour‑‑Labour Court setting aside dismissal order of not only "A" but also of "B"‑‑No appeal filed against order of Labour Court regarding reinstatement of "B" but order of Labour Court in respect of "A" appealed against‑‑Appellate Tribunal, in circumstances, taking notice of discrimination and upholding order of Labour Court: [1980 P L C 999 and P L D 1978 S C 239 held not applicable].

1980 P L C 999 and P L D 1978 S C 239 held not applicable.

Kamal Mansoor Alam for Appellant.

Shamsuddin Khalid for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 18th December, 1984.

This is an appeal directed against the impugned order, dated 27‑7‑1983, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. IV at Karachi, whereby he had allowed the grievance petition of the worker, namely, Mohammad Rauf, filed under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969.

2. The facts are briefly that one Mohammad Rauf who was Technical Assistant in the Central Laboratory of Pakistan Steel was charge‑sheeted under S.O.15(3)(b) and (h) at the West Pakistan Industrial & Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The facts are that on 9‑6‑1982, at 11‑00 a.m. at P/C No.39, in the 'A' Shift, Mohammad Rauf had gone to the office of Time‑keeper, namely, Abdul Ghaffar, to get 'his attendance verified. Abdul Ghaffar refused to verify his attendance and, therefore, some hot words were exchanged. The companion of Mohammad Rauf, one Shafiqur Rehman got excited and gave up a blow to Abdul Ghaffar who bleed from his nose. This entailed into a domestic enquiry. Therefore, a show‑cause notice was given by Officiating Manager, S. A. Muneem. Both the companions, namely, Mohammad Rauf and Shafiqur Rehman were made to face an enquiry. The show‑cause notice, dated 24‑6‑1982, is as under:

"It has been reported that on 9‑6‑1982 at 11.00 a.m. at P/C No.39, in the 'A' Shift you tried to get your bogus attendance verified from the Time‑keeper, Mr. Abdul Ghaffar, P.No.83232. On his refusal, one of your colleague Mr. Shafiqur Rehman, started beating to Mr. Abdul Ghaffar, which resulted bleeding from his nose. This behaviour from your part shows dishonesty which amounts to misconduct under the provisions of section 15(3)(b)(h) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968."

3. The above show‑cause notice could be divided into two parts. The first part is the dishonestly getting bogus attendance verified and the second part is disorderly behaviour. A domestic enquiry was held and the enquiry report was submitted by Khabir Ahmad, Assistant Manager (IR) an Enquiry Officer on 21‑9‑1982. The enquiry officer absolved the respondent Mohammad Rauf from the charge of dishonesty on the basis of evidence furnished by one Muhammad lqbal Shahid XEN, but found him guilty of the disorderly behaviour. The respondent, therefore, was found guilty under section 15(3)(h) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 and he was dismissed. Similarly, Shafiqur Rehman who faced the enquiry together with the respondent, Mohammad Rauf was also dismissed. Both of them filed grievance petitions. Shafiqur Rehman was ordered to be re‑instated with full back benefits by the learned Bind Labour Court No. II at Karachi.

4. I have heard the learned counsel of the appellants, Mr. Kamal Mansur Alam, Advocate, and Mr. Shamsuddin Khalid, Advocate, for the respondent. The enquiry officer gave the report that Mohammad Rauf instigated Shafiqur Rehman to beat Abdul Ghaffar. I have seen and perused the statement of Abdul Ghaffar at page 139 of the lower Court record. Nowhere he has stated that Mohammad Rauf instigated Shafiqur Rehman to beat Abdul Ghaffar. It was a voluntary re‑action of Shafiqur Rehman himself due to anger who stopped Abdul Ghaffar. The exercise of violence was neither instigated by Mohammad Rauf nor incited by Mohammad Rauf and hence he cannot be held responsible for the injury which is caused by Shafiqur Rehman. The heat created by the angry dialogue between Abdul Ghaffar and the respondent, Mohammad Rauf is natural because Abdul Ghaffar would not verify the attendance. The evidence of P.W. Iqbal is that Mohammad Rauf attended the overtime. Therefore, clear cut result ought to be that Mohammad Rauf is not guilty of disorderly behaviour and he is not guilty of causing violance or injury to Abdul Ghaffar. This being so he clearly gets off from the enquiry. Unfortunately he was found guilty by the enquiry officer and the result was that he was dismissed.

5. I have read the impugned order of the Lower Court. The conclusion by the Lower Court is sustainable on account of the fact that Mohammad Rauf is, according to the domestic enquiry, not guilty of disorderly behaviour. The charge has actually failed. Mr. Kaman Mansur Alam has referred me to 1980 P L C 999 and P L D 1978 S 239. The facts in these 2 authorities differ and they are not applicable to the present case. The present case is on different footing.

6. Shafiqur Rehman who was also absolved and re‑instated with full back benefits by the learned Labour Court No.11, there was no appeal filed by the management. Why this discrimination is shown, one) does not know.

7. In the result, I find no force in the present appeal which I hereby dismiss it. The respondent is also entitled to all back benefits for which I hereby order accordingly.

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.