Messrs MUHAMMAD FAROOQ TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED Versus MUHAMMAD ZAMAN

DECISION

These are two cross appeals filed against an impugned order, dated 3‑2‑1987, passed by the Sind Labour Court No.IV, Karachi, who had allowed the grievance petition under section 25‑A, I. R.O. 1969 directing the reinstatement in service of the worker, namely, Muhammad Zaman, but without back benefits and also with a punishment of withholding of his annual increment for one year. As, Appeal No.KAR‑76/1987 was filed by Messrs Muhammad Farooq Textile Mills Ltd., Karachi, against the order of re‑instatement and Appeal No.KAR‑79/1987 was filed by the workman namely, Muhammad Zaman against the order of re‑instatement without back benefits and also punishment of withholding of annual increment for one year, therefore, I would also dispose of both the appeals by this single decision.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the worker, namely Muhammad Zaman claimed to be a permanent workman of the management of Messrs Farooq Textile Mills Ltd. in the position as Time Punch Operator and also claimed to be a President of the newly‑formed trade union. The case of the worker was that on 29‑10‑1984 he applied for leave on the ground of his sickness and when he reported to resume duty after recovery from sickness he was not allowed entry into the mills and as he was gate‑stopped which amounted to his dismissal from service, therefore, he approached the Labour Court who had ordered his re‑instatement in service with a direction to the management to conduct enquiry against him. Further, the case of the worker was that thereafter on 12‑2‑1986, when he reported for duty, he was not taken and was given a letter of suspension for four days which was extended. However, on 22‑2‑1986, the worker claimed to have requested the management to fix the enquiry either before the Director of Labour or in the Labour Court which request was not accepted by, the management and an enquiry was conducted in perverse manner resulting in his dismissal from service on 6‑3‑1986. Thereafter the worker submitted his grievance petition before the learned Labour Court which has passed the impugned order.

3. The case of the management was that the absence of the worker from duty was deliberate with ulterior motive, hence the contention regarding sickness and illegal dismissal was unfounded and uncalled for. That however, in accordance with the orders of the learned Labour Court, the management claimed to have held the fresh enquiry against the worker in which he fully participated and was also afforded full opportunity to defend himself. The management further claimed that the worker was also given assistance by his co‑worker, namely, Rahim Khan and both these persons cross‑examined the witness and there was no agitation against the unfairness of the enquiry which was, in all manner, fair, legal and according to settled principles of Law, resulting in that he was found guilty of the misconduct and hence, he was rightly dismissed from service. Therefore, the claim of the management was that as there was no allegation of victimisation bias and or mala fide, therefore, he was not entitled to maintain his grievance 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 passed the impugned order, hence, these two cross appeals.

5. I have heard Messrs Siddiq Mirza and Masood Mirza, the learned counsel on behalf of the management and Mr.Raja Shamsuz Zaman, the learned Advocate for the worker and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of case. It would be very much relevant to reproduce the cross‑examination of the worker, namely Muhammad Zaman to determine the facts and truth of his case, as under:‑

"I had received the enquiry letter after I had participate in the enquiry proceedings. I had signed the proceedings. It is correct that Hyder Zaman was to assist me in the enquiry which the management did not allow. It is correct that my nominated choice of the worker was not allowed because Hyder Zaman was not working in the mills. This is according to the management. It is correct that Hyder Zaman belongs to Azad Labour Union. Whereas I am not the member of Azad Labour Union, when I was dismissed, the application for registration of Azad Mazdoor Union was pending registration. It is correct that the Registrar of Trade Unions, has rejected the application for Registration of the Azad Mazdoor Union on 13‑1‑1985. It is correct that the management did not appeal against the Judgment of Compensation Commissioner and I was paid Rs.15,000 because I was declared permanent partial disability of 75$ and not 100 per cent. This was due to suffering from T. B.

Q: Did you write letter to the management that the enquiry officer is dishonest?

Ans: I had not made any protest that he was dishonest.

6. In view of the above clear and specific admission by the worker himself, it would not be justified for him to claim in his grievance petition that he was not served with an enquiry letter by the management or that he did not participate in the enquiry or that he was not afforded full and reasonable opportunity to defend himself. From this evidence, it is further established that neither the worker was an active member of a registered trade union nor he was victimized for his trade union activities. Moreover, it is proved beyond any doubt that the worker was disabled to perform his duties on account of his suffering from T.B. therefore the learned Labour Court was quite right in observing that neither the Doctor was produced in support of medical certificate for his unauthorised absence from duty nor it was proved that he was admitted in hospital as an indoor patient. All the enquiry proceedings are signed by the worker himself and admittedly the worker had no complaint against the enquiry officer. Thus, the findings of the enquiry officer holding the worker guilty of the misconduct is quite correct and lawful and need no interference. when the learned Labour Court has itself held the worker responsible for all his deeds and actions the impugned order, then was in 1A accordance with law, it was not proper for it to be a benevolent despot contrary to the admitted facts and circumstances. I, therefore, hold that the worker was guilty of the misconduct and was rightly dismissed from service therefore, he was not entitled to maintain his grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969 which is hereby dismissed.

7. For the reason stated by me above, I would set aside the impugned order and would dismiss the grievance petition, under section B 25‑A, I. R.O. 1969, filed by the worker, namely, Muhammad Zaman, before the learned Labour Court. Both these two cross appeals are hereby disposed of accordingly.

A.E./1101/Lb.S Orders accordingly.