AMINUDDIN Versus -DAN PAK FOOD INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI

DECISION

This appeal calls in question the order of the Labour Court No. 3 Karachi dismissing the petition riled under section 25‑A, I.R.O. The circumstances in which it arose in brief are as follows:‑‑

Aminuddin was working as an electrician with the respondent. On the 12th of October, 1991 during the working hours when he was going out of the factory gate, he was challenged by Rahim the Chowkidar. He had paid no heed to the Chowkidar and took a defiant attitude. Rahim had reported the matter to the Labour Officer by the name of Mohabbat Hussain. The latter had asked him to produce the petitioner when he returned to the factory. He did turn up after 20 minutes and was produced before the Labour Officer, and when he made enquiries about his going out during working hours he had used vituperative language. As a result of this he was issued a charge‑sheet on the next date which was replied to. The enquiry was ordered for the 21st and Mehboob Alam was appointed as Enquiry Officer.

2. Mahboob Hussain was the first witness to be taken up but the petitioner is stated to have adopted a non‑cooperative behavior. He is alleged to have talked a good deal but nothing by way of cross‑examination. Not a single question was put to Mehboob Hussain though attempt to persuade him was on for about 2 hours for that. The enquiry was then adjourned to the 24th when he did not turn up. After waiting for hours the Enquiry Officer made enquiries from Rahim the Chowkidar and one Ejaz Ahmed who was sitting with Mehboob Hussain when he was abused by the petitioner. On the submission of the report the petition came to be dismissed on the 26th October, 1991.

3. The petitioner was his own witness and Mehboob Hussain the Labour Officer and Mehboob Alam the Enquiry Officer appeared on behalf of the respondent.

4. The Labour Court found that the petitioner had committed misconduct and had also deliberately boycotted the enquiry later on. He therefore found that the dismissal of the petitioner from service was absolutely in order.

5. At the enquiry Rahimuddin, Ejaz and Muhammad Hussain were examined. They had given a very cogent and consistent narration of the event. The statements of the witnesses at the enquiry, as earlier mentioned, remain un-rebutted. Even during the proceedings before the Labour Court nothing worthwhile could be elicited from Mahboob Hussain or the Enquiry Officer. The fact that when reporting the incident to the higher authorities, Mahboob Hussain had not found place for the abusive language is neither here nor there.

6. The case of the appellant is that he had come to grief because the respondents were nursing grudge against him because of his union activities. Admittedly there was a settlement over the Charter of Demands. The appellant was only a member of the Managing Committee. The General Secretary, the President, the Vice‑President and other office‑bearers had not been touched. There is no special reason for laying their hands on him. It is clearly an afterthought because there is no mention of this animosity in the grievance notice either.

7. There was also nothing to show that he had been denied any request while facing the enquiry on the 21st of October. He had walked away after about two hours without caring even to know about the next date. He was informed about the same by a letter. He admits the receipt of the letter notifying the enquiry for the 24th. There was no trace of him on that date. He says that he had sent a letter asking for adjournment as he was unwell. There is no proof of the letter or the nature of his illness. Patently his demeanour was cantankerous and non‑cooperative. And if the boycott was wilful and deliberate, as it was, he has only to thank himself for the consequences.

In the result I will affirm the order and dismiss the appeal.

H.B.T./2204/Lb.S ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.