GHULAM HUSSAIN Versus Messrs PAKISTAN STEEL, KARACHI
ORDER
This is the case of the misconduct of an employee of the Steel Mill, who, it is said, having taken the advantage of the position of the office‑bearer of the union, took the law in the hand, by causing assault to the officials of the Transport Department namely Mr. Jatoi D.M. Transport, Mr. Abdul Rehman A.M. (Technical Officer) and Mr. Muhammad Anwar, further by causing loss of Rs.2,000, the cost of the watch, which was missing, what the Court may call, not short of criminal offence in the legal sense.
2. He was proceeded on the charge of misconduct, and dismissed. It is against this dismissal, he has come to the Court of law, for the redress that if the misconduct was claimed, it was outside the Steel Mill. The precise background of his presence, in the Reception Camp, from where this assault took place, on the National Highway, because 31r. Ghulam Hussain was in the Reception Camp to give the welcome, to the High dignitary of the political party who was coming from Thatta, on way to Karachi as normal tour.
3. Respondent has supported the enquiry and the participation of Mr. Ghulam Hussain in the enquiry and made fair declaration that the enquiry was fair, impartial and by no other consideration. Above all, what is emphasized is, that all the trade unions, work in their sphere of activities. But the manner, in which law was taken by the office‑bearer, he is not above the law.
4. The show‑cause notice briefly is that Mrs. Gulzar Begum President Progressive Workers Union, accompanied, by some other persons came to the Control Points and objected to the diversion of traffic. On this interference, Mr. Ghulam Hussain became excited and caused assault to three officials of the Transport Department and during this assault .they lost the watch of Rs.2,000. As a result of this incident mob standing near Raziqabad, rushed to the scene of incident and made the position worst. This incident took place on 7th May, 1986 at 7‑50 a.m., when these Officers were performing Traffic Control duties at the road junction, Shah Latif Town, National Highway near Raziqabad to allow the facility to people coming in the Steel Mill through that diversion.
5. To be precise, the notice of show cause does not speak of a road blockade due to any other reason of political leader, and therefore, what can be understood, as the remote act of the incident and what happened. The contention, that, the Reception Camp was arranged to receive the high dignitary, is the wrong use of the reference of the political party by the applicant Ghulam Hussain, which has nothing to do with the incident what can be seen from the charge given in the notice of show cause.
REASONS:
1. This is a case of the physical assault to some of the officers of Transport Department of the Steel Mill namely Mr. H.R. Jatoi. D.M. Transport, and Abdul Rehman A.M. Technical, and Mr. Anwar Choudhry of F.M. of Transport Department. The charge against Ghulam Hussain is that Mrs. Gulzar Begum, President Progressive Workers Union and Mr. Ghulam Hussain, came to the Traffic Control point on National High Way near Raziqabad and objected to the diversion of the traffic and without any provocation, caused assault on these officials.
2. Before Court refers to the actual merits of the contention, raised by Mr. Ghulam Hussain, that he was not guilty of the assault, on the enquiry, conducted before domestic forum, which did not follow the required procedure and his dismissal was illegal, the Court has referred the enquiry report, to see how many witnesses, were examined. On page 2 of the enquiry report, list of the witnesses has been shown from both sides and reference is made in the finding to the evidence of Mr. Abdul Rehman, Ch. Muhammad Anwar, S.M. Pervez, D.M., Abdul Majeed, Islamul Haq and Fayyaz Ahmed. What has been observed that Mr. Jatoi to whom there was assault and first time this assault which was made on Mr. Jatoi, his statement before the Enquiry Officer has been recorded, but if it is recorded what has been referred on page 2, the only prominent names appear of Ch. Muhammad Anwar, S.M. Pervez, D.M. Abdul Majeed, lslamul Haq and Fayyaz Ahmed.
3. Why there is no discussion of the evidence of Mr. Jatoi, although the evidence of :Mr. Jatoi has been recorded and cross‑examined. If the Court understands that the word D. M. is used in paragraph 6 which has reference to Mr. Jatoi, his name should have been mentioned and why there was omission. In any way, Mr. Abdul Rehman A.M. Transport made the statement before the Enquiry Officer that the office‑bearers of the Progressive Union stopped buses, which were proceeding to the Steel Mill. It was found that Mr. Ghulam Hussain first beat Mr. Jatoi D.M. Transport and slapped him also on the face, other 4, 5, unknown persons assaulted Ch. Anwar. In other words three persons were beaten and during this course of assault Mr. Abdul Rehman lost the watch.
4. All these witnesses fully supported before domestic enquiry. His defence was very simple that it was not the duty of the traffic officials, to control the traffic but of police. In other words, he has denied the allegation that he was responsible for the assault. One more aspect was considered by the Enquiry Officer, that the objection of Mr. Ghulam Hussain that the Corporation had no jurisdiction to take action, against him, in respect of the incident which took place outside, confirms about the existence of the incident.
5. In this context of the finding, the evidence of Mr. Ghulam Hussain before the Court of law, further confirms that enquiry was conducted, in connection with the show‑cause notice and he participated in the enquiry. But what he has said further that seven witnesses were examined in the enquiry from the side of prosecution and 8 witnesses from the side of defence though he wanted to summon 40 witnesses. The remarkable feature of the enquiry is that the evidence of the defence has not been discussed, in the finding, which according to the requirement of the enquiry the evidence of the defence is also to be discussed like the evidence of prosecution. Indeed what the defence version has been seen of the witnesses in the enquiry, they have not attributed any assault by Mr. Ghulam Hussain except his presence at the time of reception, when leader of People's Party was passing from Thatta. But the discussion of the evidence was necessary what has been said before the Labour Court. They have also examined one Mr. Abdul Majeed on behalf of Mr. Ghulam Hussain where the allegation is made that Enquiry Officer compelled him to give evidence and when he refused he gave threats. In his cross‑examination before this Labour Court he has admitted that his statement was recorded. At the second place he says that Mr. Abdul Rehman had asked him to give the evidence in their favour. He has also come out with this strange allegation that he was also under the pressure of the management. But qualifies, with this statement that he does not know what talk transpired between the management and himself.
6. There is also evidence of Mr. Altaf Hussain Junejo and Mr. Qamar Abbas, Deputy Manager. Mr. Qamar Abbas has admitted this position that in 1984 and 1985 Mr. Ghulam Hussain was one, of the office‑bearers. This incident took place outside the National High Way. It is not correct that Mr. Abdul Majeed was under pressure. He has also said confidently that he never put pressure on Abdul Majeed to give the evidence but he was the ordinary witness of prosecution.
7. This witness also has very categorically stated that he has no knowledge that Mr. Ghulam Hussain was on duty or on leave at the relevant time but he knows that the assault was done on the officers and they had gone to clear the traffic for the employees to come to the Steel Mill. The distance between National High Way and Transport Department was 2 kilometres.
8. Mr. Altaf Junejo has fully supported the enquiry and very confidently stated that Mr. Abdul Majeed voluntarily appeared as a witness but subsequently influenced to change the course of evidence. He has also supported Annexure R‑1 which is the copy of the order dated 22‑4‑1987 of the Competent Authority.
9. With this background, this fact removed the doubt that Mr. Ghulam Hussain was given the full opportunity to appear, before the Enquiry Officer, and produce the defence which he produced, except what the Court has seen that the defence evidence should have been discussed. But this does not change the complexion of the matter that enquiry be remanded, for each case has got its own peculiarity. If the fact becomes evident that ‑the presence of Mr. Ghulam Hussain at the time of reception is not disputed and the Court refers to his defence statement that he has denied his. participation, the over all evaluation of the evidence what the Court places the belief that Senior Officers like Mr. Jatoi and Anwar Chaudhry have fully supported that they were assaulted by Mr. Ghulam Hussain.
10. What further evidence is required that highly responsible officers have fixed the responsibility on this driver, who took the law in the hand, and such an act by an employee of such a highest organization of a reputable concern.
11. The Court has no other view but to place responsibility on Mr. Ghulam Hussain who has been prominently shown as the direct participant in the assault with other people if assuming, of such lower degree without ethical aspect felt by the employee, But what the prominent defence at the best, has been raised, that the incident took place on the National High Way outside the premises of Steel Mill. Before this aspect is touched, the Court may also point out that the evidence of Mr. Abdul Majeed is of no significance for, if any pressure was used what steps he took to move the highest authorities but gave the statement and subsequently changed before the Court of law. His evidence can best be measured that if he claims that he was under the pressure of the management, management includes other officials also, his demeanour suggests that if he is not able to recollect what talk took place between the management and himself regarding such pressure, his evidence on all points is poor, inferior and of critical nature, only to provide cover, to the incident which otherwise the finding of the Enquiry Officer regarding appreciation of the evidence of the persons who were assaulted stands unimpeachable and further examined by the Court of law, in juxtaposition, with defence version.
12. Indeed, this is a question of law whether misconduct can be attributed to the remote act committed outside the Steel Mill on the National High Way. The charge is of riotous or disorderly behaviour during working hours at the establishment or any act subversive of discipline. Indeed there is no dispute to this proposition that the words used are "during working hours". But at the same time the words 'any act subversive of discipline' have a legal significance, by being disjunctive by the use of word "or". If the impression is taken that the act committed during working hours has direct reference to the same act, subversive of discipline, what the Labour Court understands it will apply that any misconduct committed during working hours but the word used is also "or" that any act subversive of discipline. The word "subversion" may not be understood in that meaning what it conveys actually. But for the purpose of discipline what the Labour Court follows, the subversive of discipline means the indiscipline of the higher gravity, than the ordinary indiscipline of minor nature or what to say subversive of discipline means that the act committed by an employee what can be understood in the ordinary sense that at the time of presentation before his superior he does anything more than of aggressive nature against the fine sense of civilized code of behaviour to react on the reputational working of the officials. If two views are taken by the Labour Court, for example if the employee commits an assault or does any act in other District such as assault in respect of some dispute of domestic nature, whether this can be considered as the indiscipline to be B taken cognisance of. If another view the Labour Court takes that every employee is supposed to have the Code of ethics, attached by the rules of service that no conduct be shown by which the‑management of a particular organization is embarrassed or as the nexus with the reputational working, particularly in the concept of industry where the Labour Court feels that every industry carries the name. So to be precise, that in the present case the assault has been committed on the officers of the Steel Mill by the person who also happens to be the employee of the Steel Mill. It is cannot be disputed that crowd of people had gathered what can be seen from the nature of the matter, to offer respect for the leader who was coming at the same time. It cannot be unusual that the officials & the Transport Department found obligation to divert the traffic towards the Steel Mill to the extent of allowing the employees not to be disturbed in the working. So, with this background, it is not necessary that the Central Administration should issue written order for the Transport Department for the diversion of the buses. If the Transport Department made the move, in the sense of duty, this technicality that the written order should have been there cannot displace the presence of Mr. Ghulam Hussain who was physically present and supported by Mr. Jatoi, Anwar Chaudhry and Mr. Rehman that while diverting traffic they were assaulted by this man alone and 3, 4 other persons, and furthermore presence is admitted and pleaded the case only from this legal approach that this incident of assault cannot be subject‑matter of disciplinary proceedings. Firstly, the Court is of the view that it does not befit any employee working in the same organization to assault any other employee. This is also an offence under Criminal Law. This is also taking of the law in the hand. No excitement allows any person under the Criminal Law also to, forget his legal responsibility.
13. In view of the matter, this was the remote act of one individual, who out of excitement committed assault to which Senior Officers confirmed during enquiry, without any bias. If the defence cover is given that he was office‑bearer and the intention was to crush the activities, the Court does not agree. It is between the management and the worker and for that there should be evidence of strong and overwhelming nature to show that previously he was the victim. No officer will take the risk of saying before the Court of law that he was beaten and slapped on the face. In other words, no person will desire to make himself laughing stock, unless aggrieved. So mere allegation to take the cover of the union is reflective of the accused's mental makeup by which he cannot bring the union in the dispute. The Court may also further point out with an emphasis whether he may be office‑bearer or any person, he cannot be allowed to commit assault in the manner it has been shown. The Court of law fully supports the Enquiry Officer's observation but with this regret that defence version should have been discussed. Why the Court emphasizes that the judicial requirements cannot be otherwise fulfilled. The Court has examined every aspect. For example, if the Enquiry officer has been given the honour to decide the problem between master and servant or to say there is any problem between two human beings, the responsibility is heavy to discharge. If the employer gives him this position to say what is truth, he must say what is truth by examining all the requirements for, the employer himself gives him the confidence, and therefore, there is nothing to fear. If there is error supposing, in decision, it is again placed before the Court of law for the review. But the nobility and sincerity of the finding will always be appreciated.
14. In this case, the Court fully agrees with the observation and gives the following opinion.
"What the Enquiry officer has given, his opinion and further examined by the Court of law looking to all the accuracies of the defence version which was no more of denial but presence of Mr. Ghulam Hussain confirmed at the time of incident, the Court of law has no other view that what the management has found better judgment looking to the proportion of the gravity of the charge in the matter of punishment. The breach of indiscipline between the members of the same organization can also cause considerable reaction on the reputational working of the officials against one subordinate of the lower rank, if the law does not take the rigour application that such aggressive tendencies if allowed can create a precedent, because Industrial Organisations are followed by the rules to ensure the obedience, loyalty and the fine presentation of the conduct and the respect between the subordinates and the officers of the superior ranks as it goes higher for these aspects, Court takes into consideration in the context of the Standing Order 15 which is full of legal philosophy of discipline imposing obligations on the employer and the employee. What the Court of law will say, in the most modest tone that the driver, being the subordinate of the lowest rank, cannot act, in this manner with the official of the highest rank, merely taking the cover of the office‑bearer of the union. What the Labour Court feels, in the labour cases, of which different stories are read every day, the union is supposed to do any activity which is lawful. Here it is act of one individual. Re cannot commit the breach of the law, what the Court of law will not sanction this approach what he has taken on the basis of excitement and at the same time asking for reinstatement because of non‑employment. To be precise, poverty is a different philosophy. Law is the different philosophy, to ensure the loyalty of the actions within certain set rules of conduct. In certain cases, this Labour Court has reduced the punishment where there is not intentional absence or not wilful insubordination but in a case, where there is violence, want of orderly conduct between two members of the same staff, the gravity of this charge needs the Court to consider whether the desirability of the punishment of dismissal will suit the occasion or the lesser punishment.'
15. In the result, the order of dismissal is affirmed. Application is dismissed.
A.E./1211/Lb.S Application dismissed.