YOUNIS GIL Versus A.D. MARKER (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI

DECISION

The appellant was appointed by the respondents as a `Driver' in 1981. On 15‑3‑1990 he was served with a charge‑sheet for certain acts of indiscipline. The reply furnished by the appellant not having been found to be satisfactory, there was an order of domestic enquiry.

2. It is stated that as the appellant was not prepared to sign on the proceedings papers before SA. Rizvi the Enquiry Officer and was otherwise non‑cooperative, coupled with the fact that the aforesaid Enquiry Officer was pre‑occupied, Zulfiqar Ahmed, Assistant Manager, was appointed in his place to hold the enquiry. The appellant this time did not participate, in the proceedings at all. The aforesaid Enquiry Officer after recording the statement of Mrs. Haroon and Mr. Rasler submitted his report finding him guilty of indiscipline, and therefore liable to penalty under Standing Orders Ordinance. This resulted in his dismissal on 5‑6‑1990.

3. The appellant sent the grievance notice on 12‑6‑1990 which was replied to, and later filed the grievance petition.

4. The appellant was his own witness and Zulfiqar Ahmed, the Enquiry Officer, was examined on behalf of the respondents.

5. Mrs. S. Haroon the Co‑ordination Manager had stated at the enquiry that assigning duties to the drivers of the respondent company was a part of her responsibilities, as also to see that the vehicles, were kept in good condition. Once having noticed that some vehicles had remained unattended she had asked the appellant to be more careful to which he had replied very rudely. There was enough time to do what she had wanted, but in spite of her repeated orders he declined to listen to her on the ground that there was no time left. In his cross‑examination the appellant admitted the version furnished by Mrs. Haroon adding that he had not behaved rudely.

6. Mr. Rasler the other witness, the General Manager of the respondent company stated that on 13‑3‑1990 his driver was on leave and he had asked the appellant to take him home after the office‑hours. However he had paid no heed to the same. As a result he felt greatly embarrassed and had to send for a taxi to take him home.

7. There is no reason at all to look askance at what was spoken by these senior officers of a reputable company. There is also nothing to show that there was any question of anybody's annoyance about the intended formation of the Workers' Union. That is only a wild allegation and finds no support from any quarter even remotely.

8. The earlier Enquiry Officer Mr. S.A. Rizvi had to be replaced because of his pre‑occupation and also because the appellant had refused to sign the record of the proceedings which was to be undertaken by him. Even the appellant does not say that he had signed the papers. It was only after Mr. Rizvi was no more there, that the appellant started saying that the enquiry should be held only by him instead of Mr. Zulfiqar Ahmed. On his own showing he was aware of the fixture of the enquiry which was to be held by Mr. Zulfiqar Ahmed. He had also been informed in writing through a registered letter. He was asked therein to produce his witnesses, if any. He has categorically stated that he had appeared before Zullfqar Ahmed earlier in the morning and told him that he was not prepared to attend the proceedings proposed to be held by him and that it should be before Mr. Rizvi.

9. It was a deliberate act of non‑participation indicative of the contumacious temper of the appellant, which further lends support if at ally required, to the accusations of Mrs. S. Haroon and Mr. Rasler.

10. Mr. Salahuddin Khan Gandapur contended that the domestic enquiry was violative of law as the copy of the enquiry report had not been furnished to him nor he was given a second show‑cause notice. Support was sought from the judgment of Islamabad Club v. Muhammad Aslam etc. 1982 SCMR 126 which is a case from the Supreme Court. However the contrary view was taken in three Supreme Court cases thereafter namely Sarfraz v. Leaf Pakistan Tobacco Co. and another reported in 1988 SCMR page 135, Chairman 'Employees Old Age Benefits Institutions v. M. Ismail Munawwar 1984 SCMR page 143 and Muhammad Rauf v. Makran Fisheries and another 1981 SCMR page 631.

11. The dismissal of the appellant from service and the order of the Labour Court, under the circumstances, is proper and called for no interference. I would, therefore, dismiss the appeal.

A.A./2097/Lb.S

Appeal dismissed.