AVARI TOWERS KARACHI HOTEL. KARACHI Versus TANVEER HUSSAIN
DECISION
The respondent was working as a Plumber with the appellant hotel since 28‑10‑1984. On the 31st of December, 1985 he received a charge‑sheet which reads as follows:‑‑
"It has been reported that on 30th December, 1985, at about 1600 hours, while you were on duty during the tea time alongwith M/s. Abdul Rashid, Senior Captain, Muhammad Ishaq Waiter gathered and led all the staff members present in the Staff Cafetaria, delivered provocative speech against the Management, and used following abusive and filthy language.
You alongwith M/s. Abdul Rashid, Senior Captain, Muhammad Ishaq, Waiter Raja Anwar Ali, Waiter, incited the Staff Members present and instructed not to obey the orders of the Management.
The aforesaid acts on your part amounts to the grave misconduct under Standing Orders 15(3)(h) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. You are therefore called upon to show cause within 3 (three) days as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against you for the above act of misconduct failing which it will be assumed that you have accepted the charges and that you have nothing to say in defence:"
2. A reply was given to the same, but that was not to the satisfaction of the Management, and a domestic enquiry was ordered.
3. To begin with the enquiry had been entrusted to Sultan Gul who had examined some witness including Darius K. Tampal but on the protest of the respondent and the others arraigned in the proceedings, he was replaced by Farhat Ali Siddiqui, Purchase Manager. However they were more vociferous against the latter after a few sittings and the proceedings were altogether boycotted. It was in their absence that the Inquiry Officer had recorded the statements of Kamran Ali Khan and Muhammad lqbal both of whom were Security Officers. He had later submitted the report on the basis of which the respondent came to be dismissed from service on 16‑2‑1986.
4. The respondent had sent a grievance notice and followed it up by a petition under section 25‑A of the IRO, 1969 before the Labour Court which was allowed.
5. The case of the respondent was that on 2‑11‑1985 they had made an application for the registration of the union consisting of the workmen of the appellant hotel which is franchised with Ramada Renaissance Hotel, and their efforts bore fruit on 30‑12‑1985. The Management had dissuaded the workmen from forming this union, as they were happy with a pocket union of their own comprising mostly of the workmen of the Beach Luxury Hotel which was a sister concern. As they had failed in their machinations, the very same day that the union was registered a fictitious charge‑sheet had been trumped up and the workers of the union had been run down. The respondent could not escape their wrath, as he was the Propaganda Secretary of the newly‑formed union consisting of about 330 workmen.
6. In the Written Reply, all these allegations came to be denied and it 'vas urged that there was rowdyism on the part of the workers, egged on by the respondent and his supporters, and consequently the proceedings were taken up against him and a few others.
7. The respondent was his own witness and Moazzam Ali Corporate Personnel Manager and Farhat Ali Siddiqui Purchase Manager appeared on behalf of the respondent.
8. It was contended on behalf of the respondent before the Labour Court that the dismissal order had been signed by Moazzam Ali Khan who was not the employer but as this plea was not taken up in the grievance petition therefore this was found to be the abandonment of the plea and was repelled. However on merits the issue was found against tile management resulting in the order of reinstatement, which has been challenged in this appeal.
9. It is alleged that on the 30th of December, 1985 the respondent and his accomplices had gathered in the Hotel Cafeteria, where provocative slogans had been raised as referred to above, and it was Darious K. Tampal who had reported the matter to the authorities. He was examined during the domestic enquiry and stated that he had made a verbal report to the Chief Security Officer, and it was recorded in the Log Book. The slogans are conspicuous by their absence in this entry and Tampal when confronted with this situation had to admit that it was not to be found in the report. Babar Ali Khan was the writer of the report, and all that he had to say was, that he had omitted these words on the suggestion of Tampal. There is not a word about the respondent in his statement except that he had raised the slogans.
10. It is an admitted position that the workmen of the hotel as a routine, assemble daily at the Cafeteria at 4‑00 p.m. where they helped themselves with a cup of tea. Therefore their presence in the Cafeteria at 4‑10 p.m. can hardly raise any eye‑brows. It is not denied that the‑ registration of the union had taken place the very same day. That there was an atmosphere of election among the assemblage can well be understood. It is nobody's case that they had been rowdy or threatening. All that is ascribed to the respondent and the company, is a few words, and the words on which umbrage was taken, are not to be found in the report recorded in the Log Book. The explanation of Babar Ali Khan is rather naive. It clearly appears that the appellants were averse to the registration of the union and were not prepared to forgive the people in the forefront. The charge‑sheet as can be seen came within moments of the announcement of the formation of the union, and the respondent and some of his co‑workers came to be suspended forthwith.
11. The respondent has complained about the attitude of the Enquiry Officer as unaccommodating and partisan. Be that as it may, even with the record of the Enquiry, the charge of misconduct is not only insupportable but grotesque. It is surprising that the Enquiry Officer on such a slender basis had no qualms in recommending disciplinary action against the respondent. The Labour Court had very properly refused to accept it.
12. As a result I will uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal.
H.B.T./2133/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.