MESSRS SOGIA PAISTAN BRANCH KARACHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Versus ASGHAR ALI

DECISION

The circumstances forming the background of this case briefly stated, are as follows:‑‑

The respondent was working as a Foreman Carpenter Grade‑1 on the site of the New Jinnah Terminal, since 25‑7‑1989. On 8‑10‑1990 he was served with a notice to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed as he was responsible for holliganism and was also found instigating co‑workers for going on strike. The reply was to be given within 3 days.

2. It was sent on the 20th of October but he came to be dismissed on the 14th, without holding any enquiry at all.

3. The respondent had served the requisite grievance notice which was replied to and thereafter the petition was filed before the Labour Court.

3‑A. The contention of the petitioner was that he had been dismissed because he had incurred the wrath of the employer for evincing interest in trade union activities. Admittedly there was ferment among the workers and there was a report also lodged with the Police about certain incidents, which is not material for the purpose of this case. In the written reply it was stated that the petitioner was not a workman but a supervisor, but the allegation in regard to the dismissal without holding any enquiry was not denied.

4. The petitioner appeared as his own witness and Syed Azhar Muhammad Hussain, Personnel Manager appeared on behalf of the respondent.

5. There appears to have been no argument before the Labour Court in regard to the nature of the job at all and it was found that in the absence of the enquiry, the order of dismissal was of no legal effect. There was no argument here either in regard to the maintainability of the petition, and looking to the broad fact that the respondent was working as a carpenter, though in Grade‑1, it is understandable.

6. It is an admitted position that there was show‑cause notice served on the respondent indicating that he had been instrumental in creating the ferment among the workers, which had resulted in rowdyism which constituted misconduct under section 15(3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. It is also not denied that without waiting for the reply and without holding any enquiry, the order of dismissal was passed. This will obviously be in flagrant violation of the provisions of Standing Order 15(4) of the Standing Orders Ordinance.

7. The action taken by the appellant remains absolutely indefensible under law. All that was submitted by Mr. M. Latif Saghar was that an opportunity may be given for holding an enquiry. The case cited by him namely Mashooq Ali v. Pioneer Steel Works Limited 1984 PLC 43 is totally inapt, because there was no question of any defective enquiry. There was no domestic enquiry at all here.

Looking to these circumstances Mr. Abdul Majeed learned representative for the respondent was not called upon to address.

In the result, the order is not being open to any exception, I will uphold the same and dismiss the appeal.

H.B.T./2100/Lb.S ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.