Find a Lawyer

Constitutional Petition D‑208 of 1987, decided on 21st February, 1987.

‑‑Ss.25‑A & 38‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O.15(4)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑Dismissal of workman from service for misconduct‑‑Grievance petition and appeal dismissed by Labour Court and Labour Appellate Tribunal respectively‑‑No jurisdictional defect or illegality found to have been committed by forums below‑‑Contention that enquiry proceedings were not undertaken according to requirements of S.O.15(4) of Standing Orders Ordinance not substantiated‑‑Enquiry proceedings and concurrent findings in two forums were according to law and did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and there was no justification for interference‑‑Petition dismissed.

Mirza Muhammad Kazim for Petitioner.

‑‑Petitioner was in service of the respondent No.3 as a sweeper and on 4‑6‑1984 he refused to work on the ground that he was asked to remove iron strips, which was work of a coolie and was not included in his duties as a sweeper. He was charge‑sheeted and inquiry was held in which evidence was recorded and finally he was dismissed from service. He filed a grievance petition a/s 25‑A of the I.R.O. (Industrial Relations Ordinance) which was dismissed by the First Sind Labour Court, Karachi vide order dated 23‑2‑1985. He filed an appeal which was dismissed by Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 3‑9‑1986.

Having failed in both the forums mentioned above petitioner has filed this petition under constitutional jurisdiction and had not succeeded in pointing out to us any jurisdictional defect or illegality committed in the forums mentioned above. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that inquiry proceedings were not undertaken according to the requirements of Section 15(4), Standing Order Ordinance. This contention is not substantiated. On the other hand, we see from the record that the petitioner was charge‑sheeted and proper inquiry as required under the law was held in which evidence was recorded of the witnesses and afterwards the finding was given. According to the respondent No.3, petitioner refused to clean waste consisting of iron strips as usual and such refusal amounted to misconduct. The establishment in order to prove the charge examined 3 witnesses namely Wali Ahmed, Inquiry Officer, Sohail Ahmed, Personnel Manager and Masood Jawaid, Store Clerk. These witnesses were cross‑examined by the petitioner. Fourth witness Sardar Masih Sweeper was not available for cross‑examination. Evidence of Sardar Masih is not to be considered. Even then remaining evidence of 3 witnesses against the petitioner is more than sufficient and conclusive. On the other hand petitioner did not produce any 'evidence in defence to prove his contention. In cross‑examination petitioner admitted that he used to clean small iron strips at the time of sweeping and on the relevant date he did not remove three iron strips as it was not his job. There is nothing in evidence to show that the witnesses produced by the management were biased or prejudiced against the petitioner. Masood Jawaid who is employed as Store‑keeper stated in his statement that there were other sweepers who also had the same work of sweeping including of small iron strips and wooden pieces. Against this over-whelming evidence petitioner had relied upon his own word without examining any witness in support of his claim. We are of the view that inquiry proceedings and concurrent findings in the two forums mentioned above were according to the law and did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. We do not find any justification for interference as such this petition is dismissed in limine.

S.Q./W‑6/K.

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.