SABIR HUSSAIN Versus RACHNA TEXTILE MILLS

ORDER

This is an appeal preferred against an order dated 17-3-75 passed by the learned Presiding Officer Junior Labour Court, Rawalpindi on a petition under section 25-A filed by the appellant. His petition was dismissed, hence this appeal.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the record of the Junior Labour Court as well as the impugned order.

3. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that appellant admittedly went on hunger strike from 11-5-1974 to 18-5-1974 outside the main gate of the mills. Again he took gave for 15 minutes on 19-5-1974, but did not turn up for the whole day. An enquiry was held and he was dismissed from service.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has stressed that two separate charge-sheets were given to the appellant but only one enquiry was held for both the misconducts. This is not warranted by law. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to support his contention by any law or care-law what soever. No prejudice was caused to the appellant and he never agitated this matter before the Junior Labour Court as well as in his grounds of appeal. In para. 5 of grounds of appeal he has stated that composite enquiry on two charges has vitiated his dismissal. He has not mentioned that any prejudice was caused by this composite enquiry. He has stated that mind of the employer must have been prejudiced by two composite charges while award ing punishment. This is mere imagination and charge of absence from duty for one day does not make out a misconduct.

5. In the second place learned counsel has laid stress on the point that under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment, (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 (herein after called the Ordinance) hunger strike dot not make out any misconduct. Definition of strike is cessation of work by a body of persons in an establishment in combination and under a common understanding by the employees. If only one person refuses to work that cannot be said to be a strike.

6. As I see the charge-sheet, it is to the effect that due to the hunger strike other employees were incited to riotous behaviour, they started raising slogans and this affected the smooth functioning of the shifts. This continued for 7 days otherwise than in accordance with the law. Incitement to other workers to stop work by way of hunger strike which has affected the smooth functioning of the mills do fall under the definition of illegal strike.

7. In that view of the matter I see no reason to interfere into the order of the Junior Labour Court. I therefore maintain it and dismiss the appeal.