Find a Lawyer

Constitutional Petition No. D‑105 of 1980, decided on 7th September, 1986.

‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S.25‑A‑ Constitutional jurisdiction in about eases‑‑Scope‑‑Dismissal from service for misconduct‑‑Findings of guilt by Domestic Tribunal (Enquiry) based on evidence recorded by it and re‑assessed by Labour Court, held, was not open to interference by High Court in Constitutional jurisdiction.

‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Domestic enquiry‑‑Dismissal for misconduct‑‑Charge‑sheet containing sufficient details of allegations‑‑Accused afforded full opportunity of cross‑examining prosecution witnesses‑‑Non‑supply of copy of complaint forming basis of charge‑sheet, held, caused no prejudice to accused.

S. Fasahat Hussain for Petitioner.

Syed Qamruddin Hassan for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 1^st September, 1986. JUDGMENT

.‑‑ This petition calls in question the order passed by the learned Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi, dated 11‑3‑1979. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the petitioner was employed by Sandoz (Pak.) Limited, Jamshoro, District Dadu (respondent No.3) as a workman. On 16‑3‑1977 the petitioner was given a charge‑sheet by the respondent containing the following charges: ‑

"(1) That you were directed by your supervisor to come on overtime on 12th March, 1977 to finish the work already assigned to you in sugar‑coating. You reported at the factory for overtime work on 12th March, 1977 but did not attend to your specific duties. When you were asked by the supervisor to start work and complete the same for which you had been engaged on overtime, you not only refused to work but became insolent towards him and did not work at all for the whole day.

(2) That on 15th March, 1977 at about 10 a. m. you rushed into Mr. Ajmal's office, assaulted him physically and pulled his moustaches. When you were asked by Mr. Ajmal the reason for such aggressive attitude, you started abusing him and his family female members. You also abused your superiors.

(3) That after a few minutes, at about 10‑10 a.m., on the same day i.e. 15th March, 1977, you forcibly opened the door and rushed into Mr. Nihal's office and started shouting and abusing him. When Mr. Nihal asked you the reason for such an insolent attitude, you became very abusive and aggressive, and assaulted Mr. Nihal in the presence of Ajmal who had just entered Mr. Nihal's office at that time. You continued your aggressive and abusive attitude towards Mr. Nihal until Mr. Ajmal brought Mr. Elyas into his office (i.e. Mr. Nihal's office)."

Thereafter; a domestic enquiry was held against the petitioner and he was found guilty of misconduct and consequently was dismissed from service on 26‑1‑1977. The petitioner thereafter filed a grievance petition under the provisions ‑of section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before the Labour Court (respondent No.2) which was (dismissed, vide order, dated 2‑12‑1978. Aggrieved by the said order 'the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Labour Appellate (Tribunal (respondent No.l) which was also dismissed, vide order, dated 11‑9‑1979. Under such circumstances the instant petition was filed.

We have heard Mr. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi, on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Qamaruddin Hasan on behalf of the respondent No.3. None appeared on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in the case.

Before us Mr. Rizvi has raised the following contentions

(1) that there was no independent evidence available against the petitioner on the basis of which he could be found guilty of the misconduct alleged against him,

(2) that the orders of both the learned Tribunal are based on mis-appreciation of evidence,

(3) that the domestic tribunal has failed to summon the defence witnesses called by the petitioner to give evidence at the domestic enquiry and, therefore, the same was illegal,

(4) that the copy of complaint on the basis of which the petitioner was charge‑sheeted had not been supplied to him.

The last two grounds were also taken by the petitioner before tithe learned Appellate Tribunal.

None of these contentions, in our opinion, merits consideration. As far as the evidence against the petitioner is concerned the same has already been assessed, first by the Enquiry Officer and then by the learned Labour Court. The question in regard to insufficiency of evidence was not raised by the petitioner before the learned Appellate Tribunal, although it has been now contended on his behalf that such plea had been raised but *was not considered by the learned Appellate Tribunal. Be that as it may, but the findings of the domestic tribunal in regard to the guilt of the petitioner are based on the evidence recorded by it which has again been re‑assessed by the learned Labour Court and, therefore, the same would not be open to interference now A by this Court in the exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction. We, therefore, find no force in the contention of Mr. Rizvi and the same is, therefore, rejected.

The next ground urged by the petitioner is that the entire enquiry proceedings had been vitiated as the Enquiry Officer did not summon the defence witnesses named by the petitioner. In this regard Mr. Qamruddin Hassan learned counsel for the respondent No.3, has drawn our attention to the photostat copy of the enquiry report filed with the respondent's counter‑affidavit which shows that the defence witnesses summoned by the petitioner had been called by the Enquiry Officer but they themselves refused to give evidence at the enquiry. There is in fact no contest on this point as the factual position was not disputed by the petitioner's counsel. Thus, no prejudice was paused to the petitioner by any act of the Enquiry Officer and the argument of Mr. Rizvi has no force.

Coming to the next ground taken by the petitioner that copy of the complaint forming the basis of charge‑sheet was not supplied to him, although has not been disputed by the respondent No.2 but the contention appears to be misconceived as the charge‑sheet contained R sufficient details in respect of the allegations made against the petitioner and he had full opportunity to cross‑examine the witnesses appearing against him. Therefore, in our opinion, no prejudice had been caused to the petitioner. We, therefore, reject this contention as well.

For the aforesaid reasons this petition was dismissed on 1‑9‑1986 and these are the reasons for the same. There will, however, be no order as to costs.

M. E. Petition 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.