GUL AHMAD TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI Versus ZIARAT GUL
DECISION
These are two cross‑appeals, one filed by the management and the other filed by the worker, against a common impugned order, dated 10‑11‑1984, passed by the Sindh Labour Court No. IV at Karachi who had allowed the grievance petition of the worker under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969, directing his reinstatement in service with 50% back benefits. Appeal No. KAR‑269 of 1984 is filed by the management against the order of reinstatement with 50% back benefits of the worker while Appeal No. 326 of 1984 is filed by the worker against the order awarding 50% back benefits to him. As, both these appeals are against one and same impugned order, therefore, I would decide both these cross‑appeals by this single decision.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the worker Ziarat Gul was employed in the Weaving Department of the management mills as a Weaver. On 5‑6‑1981, in an election Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Mazdoor Union was elected as C.B.A. Union and the worker was also elected as its Vice‑President, but, the management did not approve his election and was hostile to the rights of the workers and the Union. It was claimed by the worker that the management had threatened all the office‑bearers, either to resign from the union or to face dire consequences and under this motive, he was issued fake charge‑sheet and thereafter initiated a domestic enquiry in which he had participated wherein he was asked to put his signatures on blank paper to which he refused and in consequence of his refusal, he was locked up in a room and was kept in work full confinement, thereafter, he claimed that he was dismissed from service. The appellant worker claimed that being dissatisfied, he submitted his grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969 before the learned Labour Court.
3. The management of Gul Ahmad Textile Mills resisted the petition on the ground that after receiving the charge‑sheet, the worker Ziarat Gul disappeared and then, he was issued another charge‑sheet for remaining absent without intimation for more than 10 days. It was claimed by the management that full opportunity of defence was afforded to the worker and there was no miscarriage of justice in dismissing the worker from service on account of misconduct, hence, he was not entitled to maintain his grievance petition which was liable to be dismissed.
4. Both the parties filed their affidavit‑in‑evidence and they were duly cross‑examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order, hence the present appeal.
5. Today, I have heard Mr. Shafiq Qureshi, the learned Advocate for worker, Ziarat Gul, and Mr. Masood Ahmad Khan, the learned Advocate for the management of Gul Ahmed Textile Mills and during the course of their arguments, both the parties have reached to a mutual compromise and jointly requested that the appeal of the management be allowed setting aside the impugned order and the appeal of the worker for full back benefits be also allowed and the worker be paid his full back benefits amounting to a sum of Rs. 13,223 as full and final settlement of his due from the management of Gul Ahmad Textile Mills Ltd., Karachi. In view of this mutual settlement, I would allow both these cross appeals and the result would be that the worker, Ziarat Gul would not be an employee of Gul Ahmad Textile Mills Ltd., Karachi with effect from today, the 17‑12‑1987, but, he will be paid a total amount of Rs.13,223.80 (Rupees thirteen thousands two hundred twenty‑three and paisas eighty only as full and final settlement of his back benefits and this amount must be paid to Ziarat Gul forthwith.
6. In the above terms, both these cross‑appeals are decided accordingly.
A.E./1141/Lb‑S Orders accordingly.