GHULAM SHABBIR Versus MESSRS LIPTON (PAKISTAN) LTD.

DECISION

This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 9‑7‑1985, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969.

2. The brief facts of the case are that appellant was a permanent worker in the Parking Department of the respondent establishment for about a period of 3 years. It was the case of the appellant that according to the working system in the respondent establishment, there used to be one Machine Operator, one Helper whose duty was to open empty cases, third was to tap the same and the fourth used to further process by placing tea packets in the case and that he was posted only to work on tapping of the cases. It was alleged b3 the appellant that on 29‑11‑1983, when he was posted in 'B' shift or job day No.2 on which one Mr. Jhon was the Operator, while om Shamsuddin was his Helper whose duty was to open and set the case covers and while the work of the appellant was at third stage of the process to tap the cases and the fourth worker, namely, Tanveer was to put tea packets in the cases. It was further the case of the appellant that on the said date, for unknown reasons the said Operator. namely, Mr. Jhon, during the course of work asked the Helper Shamsuddin, not to open the case and sit idle while he was told to do his work also. That the appellant /claimed that he seriously, protested to the Operator and refused to do the work and on than one Abdul Rauf, the supervisor of the shift had also directed the appellant to do the work, "as had directed by Machine Operator; Jhon, but the appellant had again refused to do so and there the appellant was put off the duty and on the next day, he was put tc work in other Batch and later on he was charge‑sheeted by the Factory Manager, vide charge‑sheet, dated 4‑12‑1983. It was also alleged that as the reply of the appellant to the charge‑sheet was not found satisfactory, therefore, a domestic enquiry was conducted against him in which he was afforded full opportunity to cross‑examine the prosecution witnesses and to lead defence evidence. Thereafter, the inquiry resulted in the dismissal of the appellant to which the appellant alleged that it was due to personal vendetta/grudge of the Operator as well as the Supervisor. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed his grievance petition before the Labour Court.

3. The respondent establishment resisted the petition before the learned Labour Court and submitted that the termination of the services of the appellant was neither mala fide nor due to any grudge. Further, that the Operator of the machine was responsible for operating the machine who used to be assisted by other workmen in order to ensure that all functions of the machine are carried out smoothly. That, out of these persons if any one at any time incidentally was not able to work the remaining members of the team used to take over his work as additional duties to do and that any duty of any of these workers was not fixed and all had to collectively and individually in co‑operation, work under the supervision of the Operator of the Machine and the Supervisor of the shift, but, the appellant had categorically refused to obey the lawful orders of his superiors resulting into heavy loss to the employer, hence, he was correctly dismissed from service, after holding a proper and lawful enquiry, therefore; the appellant was not entitled to maintain his petition which was liable to be dismissed.

4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits in evidence and they were duly cross‑examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court has dismissed the petition, hence, this appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. S.P. Lodhi, the learned representative for the appellant and Mr. Masood Ahmed Khan, the learned representative on behalf of the respondent management, and have also, carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. It was submitted by Mr. S.P. Lodhi that the system of working op the production Machines, there were four workers, required to work at four stages of the process which ensure smooth flow of production and any one worker reduced or absent for long time, it was bound to fail the process and that it was only for a short while or a few minutes that the remaining three workers could manage to keep the process continuing in cases, the fourth one used to go for natural call, and that it was incorrect to say that the appellant had refused to obey any lawful orders of his superiors with regard to his fixed duty to tap the case of the tea. I have gone through the enquiry proceedings. I find nothing in the enquiry papers to prove that the appellant had ever refused to obey any lawful order of his either operator or the supervisor. There is an admission by the prosecution witnesses that the appellant had only said that he will perform his original duty and not double responsibilities. The respondent establishment, was A unable to rebut the evidence of the appellant that his dismissal from service was due to personal grudge of the Machine Operator and the Supervisor. I, therefore, hold that the dismissal of the appellant from service was not reasonable, but, it was improper, therefore, it cannot be sustained hence, set aside.

6. For the reasons stated by me above, I would set aside the impugned order and would allow the appeal. The appellant is directed to be reinstated in service with fifty per cent (50%) back benefits forthwith.

A.E.1961/Lb.S

Appeal allowed.