LAWRANCEPUR WOOLLEN AND TEXTILE MILLS LTD., DAWOODABAD, DISTRICT

ORDER

1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J---This petition is directed against the order of a Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 17-124979 passed in Writ Petition No, 8051 of 1979 dismissing the aforesaid petition in limine.

2. ' The relevant facts are that the respondent No,1 was employed as a clerk in M/s. Lawrancepur Woollen and Textile Mills Limited, Dawoodabad (the petitioner herein). He was transferred from the section and was working in another section. He addressed a letter to the General Manager with copies endorsed to the Joint Director, Labour Welfare, Rawalpindi and Labour Officer (Factories), Compbellpur alleging that his transfer to the said section was preclude to his being thrown out of his service because this was the device followed by the management which forcibly obtained resignations from service from employees sent to the said section by fabricating charges against them and that he was going to be dealt with in the same manner.

3. ' According to the petitioner these false, fictitious and disparaging allegations were made by respondent No,1 to coerce the management not to transfer the respondent to the other section and further to bring it into disrepute and his conduct was, therefore, an act subversive of discipline amounting to misconduct under clause (h) of sub-para. (3) of the Standing Order 15 of the Schedule to the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)

4. Ordinance, 1968. The Management charged him with the alleged misconduct and after enquiry terminated his services on 23-14976. The respondent filed an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance before the Punjab Labour Court No,6, Rawalpindi which succeeded on the grounds (i) that the charge sheet given to the respondent did not disclose any misconduct, and (ii) that the petitioner (management) had not given the second show-cause notice to the respondent No,1. The respondent was ordered to be reinstated into service.

5. ' Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioner filed appeal before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal which was admitted to a regular hearing and suspended the operation of the impugned order. In view, however, of the provisions of section 38 of the P.R.O. The stay order granted by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal lapsed after the expiry of 20 days by operation of law. The petitioner, thereafter, invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge the order of the Labour Court dated 23-8-1976 whereby the respondent had been ordered to be re-instated into service.

6. ' The learned Judge in the High Court dismissed the writ petition observing that as the respondent had only complained to his superiors as well as the Labour Department concerned and it could not, therefore, be stated that a misconduct had been committed on his behalf. It was added that the workers are entitled to vent their grievances and the management ought to have enquired into their complaints rather than being proceedings against them. The writ petition was, accordingly, dismissed in limine.

7. ' Ch. Altaf Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner, referred us to clause (h) of Standing Order 15

(3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, which reads as follows:- "15 (3) (h). The following acts and omissions shall be treated as misconduct:--

(a) to (g)---

(b) riotous or disorderly behaviour during working hours at the establishment or any act subversive of discipline."

8. It is contended that the contents of the letters addressed by the respondent were subversive of the discipline and relied upon the judgment of this Court in Abdul Rashid Qureshi v. The Industrial Court of West Pakistan, Lahore and another (PLD 1967 SC 367) wherein it was held that where there was a direct attack on the probity of a superior executive officer of the company directly concerned in the Management of the labour force, and a very grave accusation levelled that this officer was himself engineering trouble among the workmen, "there could be no question but that such conduct was calculated to be destructive of discipline".

9. ' It is submitted that in this case also the allegations levelled by the respondent were in essence similar and the High Court had erred in not examining the matter further, in the light of the law declared by this Court and dismissing the petition in limine.

10. ' This submission, inter alia, requires further examination. Leave is, accordingly, granted. Security in the sum of Rs,2,000. Appeal to be made ready on the present record.

11. ' The petitioner prays for suspension of the operation of the order of the Labour Court. Notice of the stay application shall issue to respondent No,1 for some date within this month.