MUHAMMAD .FAROOQ TEXTILE MILLS LTD. Versus NOOR MUHAMMAD
DECISION
This is an appeal against the impugned order, dated 30‑9‑1986, passed by the Sind Labour Court No.IV, Karachi, who had allowed the grievance petitions of the respondents directing their re‑instatement in service with full back benefits.
2. Brief facts of the cases of the respondents are that both respondents claimed to be the permanent workmen of the appellant mills and on 13‑11‑1985, they were falsely charge‑sheeted for the alleged misconduct with an intention to victimise them for their union activities. Further the claim of the respondents was that they did not get opportunity to submit the explanation, consequently due to the displeasure of the appellant mills, a domestic enquiry was directed which was neither fair, proper and lawful nor they were afforded proper opportunity to defend themselves resulting in their unlawful dismissals from service. They claimed that after complying with the legal requirements they had submitted their grievance petitions before the learned Labour Court.
3. The case of the appellant mills before the learned Labour Court was that on 12‑11‑1985, one supervisor, namely, Naveed Shah was coming to the department after his dinner at about 8.45 p. m. when both the respondents stopped him in the Time Office, misbehaved with him, abused and the patened not to favour the management, otherwise they would put off his pant and shalwar. Further, the case of the appellant mills was that again at about 12‑05 at mid‑night, after close of 'B' shift, the respondent again stopped Naveed Shah Supervisor and threatened him to see him outside the mills premises and to put off his shalwar/pant. Therefore, both the respondents were charge‑sheeted and were afforded full, proper and reasonable opportunities to defend themselves in a properly and lawfully conducted domestic enquiry, in which they were found guilty of misconduct resulting in their dismissals from service, therefore, they were not entitled to maintain their grievance petitions which were liable to be dismissed.
4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits‑in‑evidence and were duly cross‑examined. Thereafter the learned Labour Court passed the impugned order, hence, the present appeal.
5. I have heard Messrs Siddiqi Mirza and Masood Mirza, the learned counsel for the appellant mills and Mr. Raja Shamsuz Zaman.the learned Advocate for the respondents and have also perused the record and proceedings of the case. It was argued by Mr.Siddiq Mirza, the learned Advocate for the appellant mills that the learned Labour Court has erred in not deciding the case on merits and has opted to decide the case on admissible evidence as well as on technical ground. He has further pleased that as per, decisions of the superior Courts the appellant mills was no bound to supply the enquiry proceedings etc. and that the learned Labour Court did not apply his mind to the construction /sequence of the cross‑examination of the enquiry officer and did not correct rectify his own commission by not adding the word 'not' into the statement in the cross‑examination of the enquiry officer, which if read with proceeding statement and the succeeding statement pertaining to the alleged manipulation, so it would have' been manifestly cleared and evident that the statement must have been in the negative and not in the affirmative as it had been misunderstood by it. Siddiq Mirza, the learned Advocate for the appellant mills has vehemently stressed that from the record it is not proved that either the respondents were not guilty of the misconduct or they were not afforded proper and reasonable opportunities to defend themselves, therefore, in view of this position, the Labour Court was wrong in passing the impugned order, while, on the other hand, Mr. Raja Shamsuz Zaman, the learned Advocate for the respondents has nothing to add what he has argued before the learned Labour Court. In view of the factual and legal position, I would hold that the charge of misconduct against the respondent workmen has been fully established in a proper and lawful domestic enquiry, therefore, their dismissal from service was correct and justified, hence, the impugned order passed by the learned Labour Court cannot be sustained.
6. For the reasons stated by me above, I would set aside the impugned order and would allow the present appeal. The grievance petitions of the respondent workmen are accordingly dismissed.
A. E. /1100/Lb.S Appeal allowed.