Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
1986 P L C 684(2)
Appeals Nos.FD‑417 and 445 of 1985, decided on 22nd December, 1985.
(a) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑
‑‑‑S.O. 15 (3) (a)‑‑Misconduct‑‑Reasonable order‑‑Order to do over work for indefinite period till work completed, held, was not a reasonable order.
‑‑‑ Overtime work‑‑Worker not given overtime wages‑‑Few hours leave‑ No compensation‑‑Worker not given overtime wages but allowed few hours leave‑‑Held: Workers were justified to refuse to give overtime or to abandon work after giving overtime for some reasonable period.
(c) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑
‑‑‑S.O. 15(3)(a)‑‑Misconduct‑‑Wilful disobedience of reasonable order‑ Order should be relevant to duty of worker‑‑Electrician asked to do overtime in digging trenches was not a reasonable order‑ ‑Non‑compliance of such order, held, does not amount to misconduct.
Shamim Ahmad Khan for Appellant.
Muhammad Ashraf, Representative for Respondent No. 2.
Date of hearing: 17th December, 1985.
The above captioned two appeals arise from the decision, dated 9‑7‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.4, Faisalabad, whereby Niaz Muhammad (hereinafter to be called as the respondent) was directed to be re‑instated in service with 50% back benefits. Lyallpur Cotton Mills (hereinafter to be described as .the appellant) has in its appeal challenged the direction of re‑instatement of the respondent in service, whereas the latter has in his appeal claimed full back benefits. Since both the appeals arise from the same decision, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
2. The allegation against the respondent, who was an electrician, was that he disobeyed the order of his boss by refusing to give overtime. The charge‑‑sheet is Exh.P.2. It is to the effect that no one could go away till the work had been completed, so that the production may not adversely suffer. The reply of the respondent is to the effect that being Friday duty hours were from 6 a .m to 12 noon and he worked during the whole of that period, but in another Khata he was made to work upto 1‑30 p.m. and after offering prayers he went away for the condolence of death of a relative. The respondent also contended that none of his officers had asked him in writing or orally to give overtime, nor he was told what kind of work was to be done by him.
3. Mr. Imdad Hussain Shah, Electrical Engineer, appeared as witness in the inquiry and he admitted in cross‑examination that the respondent had worked upto 1‑30 p.m. and did not come back after Jumma Prayers. He also stated that duty hours were upto 12‑30 that day being Friday. He admitted that no time was fixed upto which overtime was to be given by the respondent and other workers. He also said that the workers were required to work till the work had been completed. He, however, could not say upto what time the other workers worked overtime. Now since the respondent did work upto 1‑30 p.m. this is wrong that he refused to give overtime. The order to work till the work was completed is not a reasonable order. Workers who had worked during normal duty hours could give overtime for a reasonable period.
Human beings are not machines or a livestock to work for an indefinite period. Even machines and beast of burden require rest. Machines require oiling and cleaning also after working for sometime. The very charge‑sheet shows that the respondent was asked to work for an indefinite period till the work was completed. Although in the charge‑sheet it is mentioned that the overtime wages would be given but Mr. Imdad Hussain Shah said that no overtime wages were paid to the respondent for working upto 1‑30 p.m. He rather said in answer to the question whether wages were paid, that the respondent was allowed by him one or two hours leave. Leave is a right of the workers, wages of few hours leave can be given in lieu of overtime wages. It appears that no overtime wages are paid for the overtime. In these circumstances the workers are justified to refuse to give overtime or to abandon work after giving overtime for some reasonable period. The other thing is that the respondent was required to do that work which was not his duty. He is an electrician but as admitted by Mr. Imdad Hussain Shah, he was made to dig trenches and he did do this work. Not only the respondent but other persons too did digging of trenches. This is a great high handedness. This amounts to physical torture. An electrician is not expected to dig the earth. So, since the order of taking overtime was not a reasonable order, its non‑compliance does not amount to misconduct. Standing Order 15 (3) (a) of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 says that wilful insubordination or disobedience to any lawful or reasonable order of a superior is misconduct. So, no misconduct was committed by the respondent and he has been rightly directed to be re‑instated in service.
4. So far as the appeal of the respondent is concerned, since the respondent said in cross‑examination that he had been doing private work after dismissal, so he was rightly not allowed full back benefits.
5. As a result, both the appeals are dismissed.
A. E.
Appeals dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer