GHANI-UR-REHMAN Versus FAUJI SUGAR MILLS, TANDO MUHAMMAD KHAN

DECISION

These appeals call in question the order of the Labour Court at Hyderabad, dismissing the grievance applications of the twenty petitioners and one Mahmood‑ul‑Hasan, by a consolidated order, dated 22‑8‑1991. Mahmood‑ul‑Hasan, however, has not chosen to come in appeal. Succinctly stated the facts forming the background are as follows.

2. It appears that the demand of the workers of the respondent mill for an increase of Rs.200 per month and an Allowance of 10% to the workers on daily wages was being agitated by the Collective Bargaining Agent Union for quite some time and had gathered momentum as no decision was being taken in the matter. There were also some other causes of friction. The wishes of the C.BA. Office‑bearers were not being considered in connection with the allotment of quarters to the workers and their promotions. Ferment was built up and on 22‑2‑1991 there was a meeting of the workers before the opening of the respondent mill, during the course whereof slogans were raised and even indecorous language was used against the superior officers. There was a pause on the 24th but from the 25th of February, 1991 onwards, matters are alleged to have taken a turn for the worse. There were meetings, threats and processions, with black banners.

3. On the 27th of February, 1991 the workers, as usual, had collected at the gate of the mill, and speeches were delivered full of intimidatory words and even abuses. It is alleged that at about 9‑00 a.m. when the jeep of the General Manager of the Mill, Brig. (Retd.) Muhammad Zafar Mir, entered the gate, the surging crowd moved in that direction. To avoid any untoward incident, the General Manager is stated to have taken cover in the nearby office of Major (Retd.) M. Javed Arsal, who at the relevant moment was officiating as Personnel Manager.

4. It is said that the crowd had chased him and finding the doors of the Personnel Manager's office bolted, started breaking down the glass panes and later the very doors of the room. Once they had broken open the door and found themselves inside, they had beaten the General Manager, Brig. (Retd.) Muhammad Zafar Mir, Major (Retd.) Javed Arsal and other persons by their side, namely Subedar Sakhi Muhammad and Umer Arif The General Manager had suffered some bruises and injuries from which he had bled. His shirt had also been torn in the melee.

5. Before the matter had taken this ugly turn, a telephone call was made to the local Assistant Commissioner, who arrived alongwith the S.H.O. and an F.I.R. was lodged by Major (Retd.) Javed Arsal later on. The police however took no action. Even the mill, which had been closed resumed working late in the night, at about 11‑15 p.m.

6. The General Manager had broken the news of the happenings later on to the Head Office of the Fauji Foundation at Rawalpindi. The appellants and Mahmood-ul-Hasan, referred to earlier, were suspended on 3‑3‑1991 and later on served with charge‑sheets. The charge‑sheet, except the one given to Ajaib Khan reads as under:‑

Subject: Charge‑sheet

I am directed to charge‑sheet you as under:‑‑

(a) On 27th February, 1991 at about 8‑00 hours, you jointly and severally collected about three to four hundred workers at the main gate. You made provocative speeches, hurling abuses against the General Manager, Personnel Manager and other Senior Executives of the Mills' Management, incited the workers to take law in their own hands and rushed to the Main Office to beat them. You led about 200 workers to the Main Office of the Mills, hoisted black flag at the gate of Main Office.

(b) That you again started hurling abuses against the General Manager, Personnel Manager and other officers of the Mills. When about 0900 hours the General Manager was coming to his office, you stopped his jeep and tried to assault him resulting the General Manager diverted his jeep towards Personnel Manager's office in the Mills and went inside the office of the Personnel Manager who was sitting there alongwith his staff.

(c) That you led the workers to the office of the Personnel Manager. Apprehending danger to their lives, the General Manager and Personnel Manager bolted the doors of their office from inside. You again made very provocative speeches and asked the workers to break the doors and beat and assault the General Manager and the Personnel Manager. You and your benchmen forcibly broke the doors of the Personnel Manager's Office, rushed into his office and started beating the General Manager and the Personnel Manager and also Umar Arif, UDC and Subedar Sakhi Muhammad, Security Supervisor. Thereafter you left the place threatening that if your demands were not met with you will kill them and announced closure of the Mills.

(d) That the above acts constitute severe misconduct on your part. You are therefore charge‑sheeted to show cause within three days of receipt of this charge‑sheet as to why severe disciplinary action may not be taken against you. If no satisfactory reply is submitted, it will be presumed you have nothing to say in your defence and the Management will be fully justified to take appropriate action against you.

For and on behalf of Fauji Foundation

(Sd.)

Brig. Muhammad Zafar Mir (Retd.)

General Manager.

However, them‑ was an additional charge against Ajaib Khan and that was in regard to his responsibility for the closure of the mill.

7. The Enquiry, as directed by the Head Office, was to be conducted by Major (Retd.) M. Suleman Bangash, who was deputed from Rawalpindi for the task. It was fixed for 27th March but came to be adjourned for the 30th at the request of the appellants. It proceeded after three days without any tension or heat. The witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross‑examination as is abundantly made out from the record. However, no witnesses were produced in defence. The report was duly submitted, recommending disciplinary action and on 9‑5‑1991 the appellants and Mahmood‑ul‑Hasan, came to be dismissed from their employment.

8. The grievance notices were given on 18‑5‑1991 but there was no reply and separate petitions came to be filed which came to be amalgamated later on.

9. Ghani‑ur‑Rehman was the witness examined on behalf of the applicants while Subedar Sakhi Muhammad, Umar Arif, Muhammad Aslam, Mr. Muhammad Younus Ghaznavi, Major (Retd.) Javed Arsal and Major (Recd.) M. Suleman Bangash appeared on behalf of the respondents.

10. The learned Presiding Officer coming to the conclusion that misconduct had been made out, dismissed the petitions resulting in these appeals.

11. The narration of the events as furnished by the witnesses of the incident, remains consistent all along. They are natural witnesses. There are no discrepancies on vital details throwing any doubt about their testimony. The factum of the occurrence is also not disputed by the appellants as well. There are injuries also on the person of the appellant Jamaluddin. Their case is that it was given by Brig. (Retd.) M. Zafar Mir who had whipped up a knife with 7" blade, and, struck on his hand. It has however been denied by the respondent's side and according to them the injuries had been sustained while breaking the glass panes and the door of the office of the Personnel Manager.

12. The suggestion that Brig. (Retd.) M. Zafar Mir, was armed with a knife and used the same is grotesque in the extreme. A hysterical crowd of hundreds of persons would have torn him into pieces. Having a knife would be out of character for a military officer, even, though retired. He was not going for a hunt. If he wanted to protect himself, a revolver or pistol would have been there for the having.

13. The arrival of the police and the Assistant Commissioner is also not denied. The fact that they were not involved in investigation of this unfortunate incident can very well be understood. The respondents obviously did not desire passions to be further inflamed causing difficulties in the running of the mill. The injuries of the General Manager were attended to by the Medical Officer of the Mill and it is nobody's case that these were of a serious nature. I am satisfied that there was rowdyism and violence on the part of the appellants and the crowd that they led.

14, Major Bangash was the General Manager (VTC) Welfare Division of the Fauji Foundation with its Headquarter at Rawalpindi and was deputed by Brigadier (Retd.) Sultan Mehmood, the General Secretary of the Foundation to hold the enquiry. He had held the enquiry with care and patience and the way the witnesses were tested in the cross‑examination speaks volumes about his will to accommodate the defence. He has clearly stated that the appellants had never expressed any desire to examine any defence witnesses and that approximates with the truth. Exception was taken by the appellants but it is to be seen that there were no witnesses, produced before the Labour Court either.

15. The contention of Syed Fasahat Hussain Rizvi, was that the charge -sheets had been issued by the General Manager, and the orders of dismissal also were from him and this will militate against the principles laid down in Muhammad Mohsin Siddiqui v. Government of West Pakistan PLD 1964 Supreme Court page 64. I am afraid, it is not so, as in the said case, the learned District Judge, Hyderabad had himself held the enquiry, framed the charges and passed the order of dismissal. It was under these circumstances that the Supreme Court had observed that he could not have been allowed to operate as prosecutor and judge and finally as punishing Authority in his own cause. Here all the decisions emanated from Rawalpindi.

16. It has also been contended, by Syed Fasahat Hussain Rizvi, that there was prejudice involved to the appellants as the domestic enquiry had been held jointly. I am afraid the objection was hardly worth while, because when a body of men, with a community of mind, and in the pursuit of common intention or common object resorts to an action, it had to be of necessity that way. On the other hand prejudice would have occurred if there was an enquiry against all these persons separately. He has referred the case of Ghulam Rasool v. The District Manager, Government Transport Service, Hyderabad 1969 PLC 255 which is not applicable at all. It deals with the statement of a number of prosecution witnesses being recorded jointly. The solecism there, would be obvious as it could not be known as to what was actually said by an individual,

17. It was further argued that the proceedings stood vitiated because the copy of the accusations and the charge‑sheet had been repeatedly asked for by the appellants, and had not been supplied to them. That is what happened again to the Enquiry Report. Reference was made to the case of Islamabad Club v. Muhammad Aslam etc. 1982 SCMR 126, wherein it was held that if these documents were not provided it will be presumed that prejudice had been caused. However, the contrary view was taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Dawood Cotton Mills v. Guftar Shah reported in PLD 1981 Supreme Court page 255. I need not refer to the citations which have been given by Raees Mushtaq.

18. In view of the foregoing observations I am clearly of the view that the findings of the Labour Court are not open to any exception.

19. In the result I will uphold the order and dismiss the appeals.

H.B.T./2112/Lb.S Appeals dismissed.