GULISTAN TEXTILE MILLS LTD. Versus GHULAM HAIDER
Since the two appeals captioned above involve common questions of fact and law, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment. The appeals are directed against the decisions dated 4‑10‑1987 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.8, Bahawalpur, whereby the respondents were directed to be reinstated in service with full back benefits.
2. The allegation for which the respondents were dismissed from service was that they had beaten Rahim Bakhsh and Younas, their co‑workers, outside the gate of the Mills after duty hours. The cause of incident is that on the same day i.e. on 17‑1‑1985 a quarrel had taken place between Ghulam Haider respondent, and Younas but due to the good wishes of some persons the matter was patched up.
3. An objection was raised in the previous grievance petitions made by the respondents that. the presentation was not proper, therefore, the respondents brought fresh petitions and presented them in person on 8‑5‑1985. The previous petitions were withdrawn with permission on 11‑5‑1985.
4. On the basis of so‑called admissions exhibited as R‑1 and R‑2 in both the cases, the inquiry Officer opined that the allegation made against the respondents had been established. The execution of the abovementioned documents was not established. The respondents disowned their signatures on them and stated that the documents were forged. Their plea was that they used to affix thumb‑impressions the writing and did not know how to sign. RW‑1 was examined on before the learned Lower Court but he did not say that either the respondents had signed the documents in his presence or that the signatures appearing on the documents were of the respondents. He too did not state that the respondents had presented the documents to him. So far as Ghulam Haider, respondent, is concerned, no admission can be found in Exs. R‑1 and R‑2. He stated that a quarrel was taking place and he intervened and got the dispute ? patched up. He did not say that he had beaten any person. So far Ghulam Muhammad, respondent, is concerned, he no doubt sought as on stating that he had committed fault but he did not explain pardon what was the fault committed by him. So, Exs.R‑1 and R‑2 in his case do not prove the allegation that he had beaten any other employee.
5. Even the allegation made against the respondents did not amount to misconduct. If the incident had taken place inside the factory during working hours and this fact had been proved, it could be guilty of subversive discipline. The said that the respondents were question of subversion of discipline arises if a quarrel takes place within the factory. If any incident takes place outside the factory which has no connection with the business and property of the employer, it cannot be said that any indiscipline was caused.
6. So far as back benefits are concerned, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondents had remained employed elsewhere which fact came to the knowledge of the appellant afterwards, therefore, before the learned lower Court no evidence could be produced on the point. If in reality the appellant got information about the employment of the respondents after the decision of the cases by the learned Lower Court, an application for additional) evidence alongwith the relevant documents obtained from the second employer of the respondents could have been made during the pendency of the present appeals but until today nothing has been done in this respect. In these circumstances, back benefits were also rightly allowed to the respondents.
7. The last point argued by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the subsequent grievance petitions were not maintainable inasmuch as they were brought before withdrawing the previous grievance petitions with permission to bring fresh ones. As mentioned in the facts of the case the subsequent grievance petitions were lodged on 8‑5‑1985 whereas the previous petitions were withdrawn with permission to bring fresh ones on 11‑5‑1985. The ground on which the previous petitions were withdrawn and fresh petitions were lodged was that an objection had been taken by the appellant that the petitions were not maintainable as they were not presented by the respondents in person. This is an admitted fact that the previous grievance petitions were not so presented which means that the said petitions could not be entertained. It, therefore, be deemed the said petitions did not come into existence. There was, therefore, no legal' flaw in the subsequent grievance petitions, even though they were lodged before withdrawing the previous ones. Even otherwise, so far as civil suits are concerned, fresh suits can be instituted and the previous ones can be withdrawn thereafter. The point which arises in such eventualities is of limitation only. No point has been raised that the subsequent petitions were time‑barred. Even if any such point had been raised it would not Lave been fatal, because in such cases section 14 read with section 29 of the Limitation Act applies and the time spent in the proceedings which the Court was not) competent to make can be excluded. The petitions, therefore, were competent.
8. As upshot of the observations made above, both the appeals fail and are dismissed.
A. E. /495/Lb.P ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeals dismissed.