MUHAMMAD ANWAR Versus KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

DECISION

This appeal from the order of the Labour Court dismissing the application of the petitioner for reinstatement has arisen in the following circumstances.

2. The appellant was working as a Driver with the respondents. It is alleged that on 13‑6‑1991, when he was asked by Abdul Ghafoor, Yard Master to take a different bus than what he was driving, he had refused to take the order, and instead used abusive language. Abdul Ghafoor had reported the matter before the authorities about the happenings, whereupon the petitioner was immediately suspended and an enquiry was ordered the same day which was fixed for the 16th of June, 1991. It is alleged that the petitioner had refused to accept the various notices and Niaz Ahmed, A.T.M. the Enquiry Officer, had examined Abdul Ghafoor in the absence of the petitioner and recommended disciplinary action against him. Agreeing with the report, the District Manager passed the order of dismissal on 20‑6‑1991.

3. After the preliminaries were settled the appellant had filed a petition wherein he was his own witness and the respondent examined Muhammad Jurial, Niaz Ahmed, the Enquiry Officer and Mr. Amir Hussain Moughal, the District Manager of the K.T.C.

4. The salient features of the case are that as soon as the matter was reported to the superior authorities near about 11‑00 a.m. there was an immediate order of suspension followed by an order for the enquiry which was to be 3 days later. It is stated on behalf of the respondent that the appellant had refused to accept any of these notices. In the very context it might be mentioned that all these notices were entrusted to Muhammad Jurial, a Clerk in the Enquiry Branch.

5. It is noteworthy that when the notices are supposed to have been refused, Niaz Ahmed the Enquiry Officer designate enquired from the District Manager in writing as to what was to be done. The reply was that the matter should be proceeded with on a priority basis. There is no explanation as to why even if, assuming that the appellant had refused the acceptance of various notices, no attempt was made to serve him through registered letters. Any way the proceedings, as ordered, were ex parte and. the only person examined therein was Abdul Ghafoor, the complainant.

6. There is no indication forthcoming again, as to why the appellant was called upon to take another bus, which he was to find somewhere on the route. There was also nobody to lend support to the charge of Abdul Ghafoor in regard to the misbehavior on the part of the appellant though there were men at the site.

7. It is not without significance that there was a telegram despatched by the appellant on the very date of incident to the District Manager that pressure was being put upon him to wean him away from the Workers' Union in favour of the rival (Employees) Union which was the C.B.A. It is admitted by Muhammad Jurial that two Bus Conductors by the name of Khalid Shaheen and Rana Muhammad Akhtar were present at the time when various notices were offered to be given by him to the appellant. He also admits that these two persons were office‑bearers of the C.BA. Union.

8. The contention of Ch. Muhammad Ashraf that it was a case of fix up, to teach a lesson to the opposing union to behave, is not without force and the circumstances, no doubt, are a clear pointer in that direction. The allegations against the appellant were nothing but a tissue of lies.

9. I will, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. It has been said by the appellant during the proceedings that he was out of job after being dismissed from service. He is ordered to be reinstated and will also be entitled to all the back benefits from the date of his removal from service.

H.B.T./2109/Lb.S Appeal allowed.