Pakistan Case LawGENERAL TYRE AND RUBBER CO. OF PAKISTAN LIMITED, KARACHI Versus AKHTAR MUNEER
This appeal challenges a Labour Court order reinstating an employee who was dismissed for alleged misconduct regarding a slowdown in production. The core legal question was whether the alleged production shortfall constituted "misconduct" sufficient to warrant dismissal under the relevant labour laws. The Tribunal held that the employer failed to establish that the slowdown was intentional or deliberate. Evidence revealed that the production shortfall was likely attributable to machine malfunctions, and the employer failed to provide comparative production data from other workers to substantiate the charge. Furthermore, the charge-sheet failed to specify the applicable clause of the Standing Orders. The court ruled that even if a breach of a company rule were established, such an act would constitute only a minor offence under Standing Order 15(1)(ii)(a), which does not justify the penalty of dismissal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the reinstatement order was upheld. The principle established is that the breach of a mere company rule, even if proven, constitutes only a minor offence under Standing Order 15(1)(ii)(a) and does not justify dismissal for misconduct.
- Does a slowdown in production automatically constitute misconduct justifying dismissal under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
- Is the breach of a company rule sufficient to constitute major misconduct warranting dismissal?
- What is the classification of a breach of a company rule under Standing Order 15(1)(ii)(a) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
DECISION
This appeal calls in question the order of the Labour Court by which the, grievance application filed by the petitioner was allowed and he was ordered to be reinstated in service with full back benefits.
2.The facts forming the background of this case are that the petitioner had been working as a "Truck Tyre Builder" with the respondent for a number of years. On the 23rd of July, 1990 he was served with a charge‑sheet implicating him for loss of production on his part, from 1‑7‑1990 to 18‑7‑1990 which was alleged to constitute misconduct as it entailed a considerable financial loss to the respondents.
3.The petitioner had replied to the same, but that did not satisfy the respondent and an enquiry was ordered. Mr. M.I. Baig, the Enquiry Officer had examined a number of witnesses in support of the allegations and the statement of the petitioner was also recorded alongwith 2 witnesses in his support. However, the Enquiry Officer had found him guilty of misconduct. This finding had been acted upon, resulting in the dismissal of the petitioner.
4.The petitioner had served a grievance notice which was replied to, but his grievance had remained un-redressed and a petition was filed before the Labour Court, which came to be resisted.
5.The petitioner apart from himself had examined one Muhammad Amin Khan and the Enquiry Officer was the only witness on behalf of the employers.
6.The Labour Court coming to the conclusion‑ that no misconduct was involved allowed the petition with full back benefits.
7.The slow down in the performance of the petitioner pertained to a limited period. It is stated to have fallen short of the target which was said to be 30 tyres per day. All that we are told in that context is the statement of Ayazullah at the domestic enquiry that the petitioner had been given i.e. standard of production in the form of a letter at the time of his confirmation which was some years back: That was denied and the letter has not been produced either. Muhammad Aslam against their witness, in the enquiry admitted that the tyres produced were of different sizes and accordingly the production figures also would vary. The charge‑sheet stops short by mentioning the number of tyres on the various dates mentioned therein, but is totally silent about the sizes of the tyres. It is also admitted that the machines were having problems and it had become such a recurring feature that a column under Down Time had to be reserved for it in the charge‑sheet.
8.What is more there are 38 Truck Tyres Builders and the production figures of the other 37 co‑workers has not been produced to show that the performance of the respondent had something to wish. The petitioner had made an application for the production figures to be brought on the record. That was not done on the ground that these production figures were as of routine, destroyed at the end of the month. There is no explanation as to why the figures for July should not have been retained as the same would certainly be relevant for the purposes of the enquiry.
9.The charge‑sheet had mentioned only slowing down of the production. There is no evidence of any deliberate or intentional slowing down at the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer not to be deterred by the same, had chosen to find that it was intentional and deliberate. There was no material for the same.
10.It is also to be noted that at all the relevant stages viz. the charge-?sheet, the notice for enquiry, or in the report of the enquiry itself it has not been shown as to which particular clause of S.O. 15 was applicable in the case. Mr. Mehmood A. Ghani learned counsel for the appellant however, relying on the decision in Opal Laboratories Limited, Karachi v. Workers' Union reported in 1972 PLC 83 which is a decision of this Tribunal contended that the list of misconduct was not exhaustive. But to my mind at its best the breach if any, will be of a rule and looking to the principle laid down in Pakistan Industrial Airlines v. Junior Labour Court No. IV, Karachi, the breach of a mere rule even if established, would attract only 15(1)(ii)(a) which constitutes only a minor offence.
11.It was alleged on behalf of the petitioner that he had been run down maliciously because his activities as the Propaganda Secretary were not to the liking of the Establishment and they were in the habit of eliminating all the office‑bearers of the Union. I am afraid there is nothing discernible that way, and the petitioner had been disowned even by the Union long before the expiry of his term by a vote of no‑confidence. So there was no special reason as to why the axe would have fallen on him. All the same no construction can be placed on the charges levelled against the petitioner in regard to the charge of misconduct. The impugned order consequently is not open to any exception.
As a result the appeal stands dismissed.
H.B.T./2162/Lb.S ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.
Judges on this bench
- Agha Ali Hyder560 judgments