MUHAMMAD YOUNUS Versus CRESCENT PAK INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI

DECISION

The circumstances culminating in this appeal in brief, are as follows:--

2. It is said that on 24-4-1989 at about the `Iftar' time, the appellant had scribbled on the wall of the respondent factory some anti-social and anti management slogans, and though asked by one of the co-workers to desist from such an activity did not care to pay any heed to his words. He was served with a charge-sheet on the 26th April, 1989 and after the receipt of the reply there was a domestic enquiry in which the appellant had participated.

3. On the receipt of enquiry report the appellant was dismissed from service on 18-6-1989.

4. The appellant had sent a grievance notice to the respondent and finding no satisfaction had filed grievance petition before the Labour Court which came to be dismissed, resulting in this appeal. The learned Presiding Officer came to the conclusion that the enquiry had been conducted in a fair and proper manner and as what was inscribed by the appellant, was subversive of discipline no exception could be taken to the decision taken by the management. .

5. The charge against the appellant was that he had scribbled slogans on the wall of the factory which were anti-social and anti-management. Some photographs of these slogans have been put on the record and there is nothing in any of these against the beliefs, mores, and values of our life or culture, as cherished by us, unless the very fact of writing at a public place be taken as anti-social per se. There is, however, something denouncing Iqbal Ahmed Khan, Labour Officer.

6. The witnesses produced in the Labour Court are the Enquiry Officer and a Director of the respondent company. None of them are eye-witnesses and have only a derivative version to offer. In the domestic enquiry, however, as many as five six witnesses had been produced namely, Zafar Mahmood, Ghulam Rasool, Muhammad Suleman, Sultan and others. The only eye-witness account in regard to the authorship of these slogans to the appellant had been furnished by Zafar Mahmood and he does not say what actually had been written by him. Admittedly there are slogans to be found within the factory premises at a number of places and this witness talks of only a momentary glimpse, without providing any particularly and details. The others are only hearsay witnesses, but Ghulam Rasool added that he had asked the appellant to refrain from what he had done and the latter had refused to hear him. But even this witness does not say what actually had been written. Suleman is demonstrably under obligation to the management as he had been re employed and the others also appear speak-easy witnesses. Under the circumstances their version does not carry any conviction, specially in view of the fact that there was no love lost between the appellant and the management. The record clearly makes out that he had been removed from service earlier also and had been reinstated by this Tribunal. A writ petition had been filed in the High Court and that came to be withdrawn by the respondents in 1986. The appellant had still continued his interest in the activities of the Union, and he states that he had been counselled by the management time and again to wash his hands of the same to which he did not agree. There is also the additional circumstance, that the financial affairs of the management had taken a turn for the worse, and during the proceedings before the Labour Court, it had been affirmed by their witness, that the company had altogether ceased to work. So the axe had to start falling and the appellant, an unwanted man for the management had to be eased out.

7. I am afraid the charge as set up against the appellant appears to be make-believe and is hardly propped up by any reliable evidence. Therefore, the fact that he was found to be guilty at the domestic enquiry would not be enough (See Crescent Jute Products Limited, Jaranwala v. Muhammad Yaqoob reported as PLD 1978 SC page 27).

8. It has been urged that the factory has been dosed since 5-8-1989 but there is no conclusive proof that way. Otherwise too the appellant can pursue his matter, taking a chance to vindicate his innocence in the matter and remove the stigma of being a trouble-maker for his employers.

9. In the light of my earlier observations, I will set aside the order passed by the Labour Court and allow the appeal, The appellant would be entitled to full back benefits.

H.B.T./2052/Lb.S Appeal allowed