Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑306 of 1984, heard on 7th May, 1985.

‑‑‑ S. O. 15 (3) (h)‑Misconduct‑Driver abusing and slapping other employee under orders accompanying him in company's van‑Held Rightly charged for misconduct ‑ Plea that incident took place outside establishment, in circumstances, repelled.

Ali Ahmad for Appellant.

S. M. Yaqoob for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 7th May, 1985.

This is an appeal against the order, dated 13th November, 1984 passed by the Sind Labour Court No. II, Karachi. He dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant in his impugned order.

2. The facts briefly are that the appellant was a driver of the res pondents. On 10th December, 1983 and 11th December, 1983 he was charge‑sheeted for 2 charges, namely, the first charge was that he refused to take the vehicle Suzuki and officer of the National Containers Limited to the Bank to deposit the cash, and secondly, he slapped and abused one Hashim while he took the Suzuki to West Wharf Road. In the grievance petition, the appellant had leveled allegations that the enquiry officer was prejudiced and he was not changed and that S. O. 15 of the Standing Orders was not complied with as the company was having more than 49 workers.

3. The management's stand is that the appellant was a driver from 6th January, 1983 to 11th August. 1984. The appellant committed misconduct, therefore, he was charge‑sheeted. The management further submitted that they never employed 49 or more workers at any time and provisions of Standing Order 15 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 was not applicable to them. The enquiry as conducted by the enquiry officer found him guilty of misconduct and therefore his services were terminated.

4. In the Labour Court, the appellant examined himself and was cross‑examined. On behalf of the respondents, Mr. Saleem Adil, Stenotypist and the enquiry officer adduced evidence by filing affidavits and were cross‑examined. The arguments of the learned counsel were beard.

5. As regards the contention that the workers with the company were 49 in number or more was found not proved by way of evidence. As regards the allegation that the appellant not only abused one Muhammad Hashim but he slapped him while carrying him in Suzuki van with the orders of the management. The contention that this incident took place outside the establishment was not accepted by the Labour Court and it was held that it is immaterial that if the offence has taken place outside the establishment but the witness who was slapped was company's man and be was ordered to accompany the driver. Similarly the charge -sheet of refusal to carry an officer to the Bank to deposit huge cash was found by the Labour Court to be refusal of lawful orders and disobedience. The explanation given by the driver that he will be caught by the Police if he carries extra man in the Suzuki van. A question of huge amount was involved and the officer was carrying the cash to the Bank. The refusal of the driver was clearly disobedience.

6. I have read the enquiry papers and it is proved that the driver had participated in the enquiry all along and bad asked several questions to the witnesses.

7. In the result I find no force in the appeal and maintain the order of the Labour Court and dismiss the appeal accordingly.

A. E.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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