The petitioner was the founder and President of the Union of Work' met employed by respondent No 1, bearing the name and style of "Cangothene Chemical Industries Labour Union (Registered) Wah Cantt. District Rawalpindi." On 13th February, 1973 he was given a charge-sheet wherein the following charges were levelled against him :- "You are charge-sheeted for the offence of misconduct under subsection (3)(a) of section 15 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 as amended up-to-date, in that :
(1) Ever since your holding the office of President Labour Union you have almost stopped working and instead started roaming about inside the workshop and offices instigating the workers on one plea or another and are thus committing unfair labour practice.
(2) It has also been reported by the I/c A. T. Bond today (which is your duty place) that you, incited and instigated your fellow workers in furtherance of go-slow (para. 59, I. R. O.) so as to force the Management to put the working of A. T. Bond on overtime.
(3) Today on 13th February, 1973 the T. D. On his round found you at 11-50 hours, reading newspaper at your duty place "during the working hours. On being warned you apologized and promised to be careful in future. After about an hour the T. D. Again saw you reading the newspaper. When questioned you stood up, came forward, became furious and replied to T. D. As under : "Solmin Scab, you do not perhaps know with whom you are talking. I am the President of Labour Union and can read newspaper even sitting in your office."
2. The Enquiry Officer, after holding an inquiry into the charges reiterated that the petitioner, should be awarded the punishment of dismissal from service, vide his report dated 5th March, 1973. The petitioner was accordingly served with a show-cause notice, alongwith a copy of the enquiry report. He showed cause, but after considering his reply, respondent No, I dismissed the petitioner from service, vide their order dated 27th March, 1973. This order is not on the record, but it is common ground that the dismissal of the petitioner was ordered on the basis that all the three charges had been proved.
3. Aggrieved by the above order of dismissal, the petitioner filed an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for re-instatement and payment of back benefits. The said appli. Cation, however, was dismissed by the Junior Labour Court vide its order dated 2Ist June, 1973. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid order the petitioner nioved the Punjab Labour Court No. 1 Lahore, by filing an appeal, which too was unsuccessful and was dismissed by the Presiding Officer of the said Court, vide his order dated 10th April, 1974. Hence this writ petition.
4. Three grounds have, in the main, been urged in support of this petition -
(a) that the inquiry proceedings were irregular and were conducted by a biased Enquiry Officer ;
(b) that a consolidated enquiry was held into all the three charges, whereas Standing Order 15(4) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, requires that the employer shall institute separate and independent inquiries in respect of each charge, before he can dismiss a Workman ; and
(c) that some of the charges levelled against the petitioner do not amount to misconduct under Standing Order 15(3). Hence the order of dismissal is without lawful authority.
5. The Writ Petition is liable to be accepted, on the short ground that two out of three charges, on the basis of which the petitioner has been dismissed, do not amount to such acts and omissions as can be treated a 'misconduct.'
6. According to the allegation levelled in the first charge, the petitioner ever since he started to hold the office of the President of the Labour Union almost stopped working and instead started roaming about inside the workshop and offices, instigating the workers on one plea or another and thus committing unfair labour practice. The above allegation may or may not constitute an unfair labour practice, but it does not amount to an act or omission which can be treated as misconduct under Standing Order 15(3).
7. Mr. Jan I Ullah Khan, Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1, attempted to argue that the allegation contained in charge No. 1 amounted to "habitual negligence or neglect of work" and therefore, was covered by Standing Order 15(3)(0. But it is clear that the burden of the charge is that the petitioner had started roaming about inside the workshop and offices, instigating the workers and had almost stopped working because of the above practice. The act alleged against the petitioner, therefore, did not amount to misconduct within the meaning of Standing Order 15(3).
8. Similarly, the second allegation levelled against the petitioner that he incited and instigated the fellow workers in furtherance of "go-slow", so as to force the Management to put the workers of A. T.
Bond on overtime does not amount to misconduct. No doubt, an error or omission can be treated as 'misconduct', if the workman begins "go-slow" vide clause' (1) of Standing Order 15(3). However, the expression 'go-slow' is defined in section 2(d) of the West Pakistan (Standing Orders)
Ordinance, 1968, as follows :- `go-slow' means an organised, deliberate and purposeful slow down of normal output of work by a body of workers in a concerted manner and which is not due to any mechanical defect, break- down of machinery, failure or defect in power supply, or in the supply of normal materials and spare parts of machinery."
' The above definition makes it clear that `go-slow' occurs when there is a purposeful slowing down of normal output. In this case there is no evidence, nor even an allegation that in fact there was a slowing down of the normal output of work by the workers, on account of the petitioner having incited and instigated the workers 'go-slow.' The allegation levelled in charge No, 2 also did not amount to "misconduct" within the meaning o Standing Order 15(3).
9. The allegation levelled in Charge No, 3 may perhaps the amount to "misconduct' within e meaning of clause (a) of Standing Order r, 15(3), but in so far as two out of three charges, on the basis of whatr action has been taken, did not amount to "misconduct" the action of dismissal on the assumption that all the three charges stood proved vitiate the entire order. See Sher Muhammad v. Bashir All Khan , wherein it has been held that it extraneous considerations have been taken into account while passing an order the entire order is liable to be quashed, and Rehmat Elahi v. Government of West Pakistan wherein the same principle has been reiterated, in a detention matter.
10. The result is that the order dated 27th March, 1973 passed by respondent No. 1, dismissing the petitioner from service was bad in law and is liable to be declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The order of the Junior Labour Court dated 21st June, 1974 and of the Punjab Labour Court dated 10th April, 1974, refusing to set aside the said illegal order, are of no legal validity and declared to be without legal effect. The upshot is that the petitioner is declared to have been wrongly dismissed and continues to be in the service of respondent No. 1. This Writ Petition is accepted, but the parties are left to bear their own costs. PLD 1962 Lab. 172 PLD 1965 Lab. 112