SHAKIL BAIG Versus OPAL LABORATORIES (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI
DECISION
1. This appeal calls in question the order of the Labour Court No. IV, Karachi, dismissing the petition fled under section 25‑A of the I.R.O., 1969. The circumstances forming the background of the case are as follows.
2. The petitioner was working with the respondents since 2‑6‑1988. His services had been terminated once earlier and he had filed a grievance petition before the Labour Court. His case was also espoused by the Union and one of the demands in the Charter was about his reinstatement. The respondent had acceded to the demand which was incorporated in the Settlement dated 27‑9‑1990. The petition was withdrawn and he was duly reinstated in service as per terms of compromise. However, he was not given posting in the Stores Department but in the Packing Section.
3. On 10‑2‑1991 he was served with a show‑cause notice which reads as follows:‑‑
2. "The summary of late attendance from your daily attendance records for the month from October 1990 to 10th February, 1991 mentioned below proves that you are habitual late comer, renders you liable for disciplinary action:‑‑
3. 14‑10‑1990 ‑‑‑‑ 120 minutes
4. 17‑10‑1990‑‑‑‑ 45
5. 18‑10‑1990‑‑‑‑ 10
6. 22‑10‑1990---- 15
7. 29‑10‑1990‑‑‑ 20
8. 30‑10‑1990‑‑‑ 27
9. 5‑11‑1990 ‑‑‑ 20
10. 13‑11‑1990 ‑‑‑ 85
11. 18‑11‑1990 ‑‑‑ 11
12. 19‑11‑1990 ‑‑‑ 13
13. 21‑11‑1990 ‑‑‑ 26
14. 22‑11‑1990‑‑‑ 20
15. 25‑11‑1990‑‑‑ 35
16. 27‑11‑1990‑‑‑ 35
17. 28‑11‑1990‑‑‑ 12
18. 29‑11‑1990‑‑‑ 20
19. 3‑12‑1990 ‑‑‑ 20
20. 5‑12‑1990 ‑‑‑ 17
21. 6‑12‑1990 ‑‑‑ 15
22. 9‑12‑1990 ‑‑‑ 20
23. 10‑12‑1990‑‑‑ 30
24. 11‑12‑1990 ‑‑‑ 75
25. 13‑12‑1990‑‑‑ 10
26. 16‑12‑1990 ‑‑‑ 12
27. 17‑12‑1990 ‑‑‑ 25
28. 18‑12‑1990 ‑‑‑ 20
29. 19‑12‑1990- ‑‑ 40
30. 23‑12‑1990 ‑‑‑ 30
31. 24‑12‑1990 ‑‑‑ 10
32. 26‑12‑1990‑‑‑ 50
33. 27‑12‑1990 ‑-‑ 10
34. 30‑12‑1990 ‑‑‑ 47
35. 1‑1‑1991 ‑‑‑‑ 20
36. 2‑1‑1991 ‑‑‑ 27
37. 3‑1‑1991 ‑‑‑ 25
38. 7‑1‑1991 ‑‑‑ 110
39. 9‑1‑1991 ‑‑‑ 80
40. 10‑1‑1991 ‑‑‑ 30
41. 13‑1‑1991 ‑‑‑ 25
42. 14‑1‑1991 ‑‑‑ 30
43. 15‑1‑1991 ‑‑‑ 35
44. 21‑1‑1991 ‑‑‑ 25
45. 23‑1‑1991 ‑‑‑ 20
46. 24‑1‑1991 ‑‑‑ 60
47. 27‑1‑1991 ‑‑‑ 30
48. 284‑1991 ‑‑‑ 10
49. 30‑1‑1991 ‑‑‑ 15
50. 31‑1‑1991 ‑‑‑ 70
51. 3‑2‑1991 ‑‑‑ 85
52. 4‑2‑1991 ‑‑‑ 35
53. 6‑2‑1991 ‑‑‑ 30
54. 10‑2‑1991 ‑‑‑ 55
55. Your abovementioned acts constitute serious misconduct within the meaning of Standing Orders of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, in which you are liable for action.
56. While you " were terminated on 22‑4‑1990 against the charge of habitual late coming in the factory. But you have been reinstated on service with effect from 30‑9‑1990 as per agreement dated 27‑9‑1990 on the request by office‑bearers of the Opal Laboratories Workers' Union assuring that you will be more careful in future and will avoid the late coming practice, but you have failed to improve yourself.
57. You are hereby called upon to show cause within 72 hours from the receipt hereof as to why severe disciplinary action should not be taken against you. Please note that if you fail to submit your explanation in writing within stipulated time, it shall be presumed that you have nothing to say in your defence, and the proposed action may follow.
58. For Opal Laboratories (Pvt.) Ltd.
59. (Sd.)
60. (S. AMJAD AHMED),
61. FACTORY MANAGER."
62. He had replied to the same but it was not found to be satisfactory and an enquiry letter was issued to him on 10‑3‑1991. During the domestic enquiry he, apart from himself, examined Muhammad Javed. However, the request for examining two other proposed defence witnesses namely Anwar Minhas and Ahsan Alt who were rank outsiders but officer‑bearers of the Federation, was turned down. The Management had examined Amjad Ahmed, Factory Manager and Taj Muhammad Khan, Administrative Officer. The Enquiry Officer had found the petitioner to be guilty of misconduct and he was dismissed from service on 2‑6‑1991. He had sent the grievance notice and later on filed the petition before the Labour Court. It was alleged therein that he had been penalised because of his deep attachment to the Union's cause.
4. The petition came to be resisted on behalf of the respondent and all the allegations contained in the petition came to be disclaimed.
5. The petitioner, apart from himself, had examined Muhammad Javaid, who had earlier been examined at the domestic enquiry. Amjad Ahmed and Muhammad Baig Baluch, the Enquiry Officer appeared on behalf of the respondents.
6. The Labour Court, for the reasons given by it, dismissed the petition resulting in this appeal.
7. Mr. Shafiq Qureshi, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the earlier proceeding before the domestic enquiry stood vitiated because Amjad Ahmad was not only the prosecutor and the Judge, but also a witness in the proceedings.
8. It is true that the show‑cause notice, the letter of enquiry and the order of enquiry all emanated from him. However, he has stated that the order for enquiry and the letter of enquiry were issued by him under the direction of the General Manager. Be that as it may, the spirit behind the maxim is that an aggrieved person should not come to wanton harm. Speaking generally an establishment may not have at its command a hierarchy of Officers, to pass only one order at a time and even if it has, and all these actions are taken by different officers, the complaint will still remain. that they were too close to the seat of power, their ears were poisoned, or that they had to adjust themselves to the wishes of the higher ups. So, this principle should not be reduced into a more cliche.
9. Amjad Ahmed had also appeared as a witness during the proceeding before the Labour Court and there is not even a suggestion that he was ill -disposed to the appellant. To my mind there is no substance, whatsoever, in the contention.
10. Mr. Shafiq Qureshi, learned counsel for the appellant next contended that the proceedings were hit by the mischief of Standing Order 15(4) of the Standing Orders Ordinance. When told that it included even the day when the charge‑sheet was issued he took up the contention that the time span of the charge‑sheet was too limited to prove habitual late arrival. The short answer to this is that the appellant had himself admitted at the Enquiry that he had given an application to the management that as his family was living on the outskirts of the town far away from any school, and he had to drop his nephews arid nieces there, a delay of 15 to 20 minutes may be condoned in his case as a special favour. He states that permission had been given but in spite of this deduction had been made from his pay about which he had complained to the Factory Manager, he admits the correctness of the record.
11. The children must be from different age groups and the process of dropping them to the school must be an old one. He had joined service in 1988 and it had been terminated in‑between. It appears from the charge‑sheet that his earlier termination from service was also on this very ground. It will well -nigh covers the entire service period.
12. There is no reason to doubt, when he states, that the delay was because he took the children to school. He was faces to face with two conflicting loyalties, but whatever the sympathies one might have with him, the fact remains that. he was on the wrong side of law and the law must prevail. His attendance was noted by the Chowkidars and the Security Guards. Taj Muhammad Khan had stated in the enquiry that those who arrived late would be reported to the Director Administration by the Security Guards. This was also admitted by Muhammad Javaid, the witness of the appellant, who states that these were forwarded to the Factory Manager and went on to add that adjustment of late‑coming had been made with his casual leaves. Deductions from pay is also spoken by the appellant in his own case. The Enquiry proceedings also shows that the attendance record had been produced before the Enquiry Officer, and there appears, in the circumstance, no reason to look askance at this testimony.
13. The Enquiry Proceedings were also absolutely beyond reproach as each page had been signed by the appellant and there are no allegations of any sort except for the fact that two of the witnesses namely Ahsan Ali and Anwar Minhas had been disallowed from testifying in the matter. Manifestly they had nothing to say about the subject‑matter of the charge‑sheet. On the appellant's own showing he had not made any complaint during the enquiry proceedings or thereafter, against the Enquiry Officer. He had been given the co‑worker of his choice and full opportunity had been given to fully cross‑examine the witnesses as the number of questions would show. The proceedings cover up about ninety pages.
14. I have, no hesitation in holding that the order of dismissal was. proper. I will, therefore, uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal.
63. H.B.T./2340/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.