DECISION ' The appellant, who was employed as an Assistant Storekeeper in the appellant establishment, was dismissed from service with effect from 14th April 1977 on the charge of wilful disobedience of orders in that he tried to pass through K. P. T. Gate at West Wharf in contravention of the respondents 'establishments circular, dated 1st January. 1977, prohibiting use by the employees of the appellant-establishment of any other K. P. T. Gate except Gate No,
37. It was specifically stated in the said circular that the management would take severe action against persons the circular were within the knowledge of every worker, including the respondent. It was admitted by the respondent's witness, Riaz Khan, that all the workers entered the company from Gate No, 37 which is also used for exit. He further admitted that the employees are not allowed to use other K. P. T.
Gates for the purpose of entry or exit. Even the respondent himself in the enquiry proceedings admitted that he was aware of the fact that the employees of the appellants establishment were prohibited from using any other K. P. T. Gate. It may further be pointed out that neither in his reply to the show-cause notice of 1st March 1977, nor the charge-sheet, dated 9th March. 1977, has the respondent taken the plea that he was not aware of the circular prohibiting the use of the K. P. T.
Gate other than Gate No,
37. The plea raised by him was that he used the prohibited gate because he was suffering from fever and pain in the abdomen. Assuming that this position was correct it did no entitle the respondent to disregard the circular of the appellant establishment which clearly warned that severe action would be taken against the defaulters. Moreover there is no evidence in support of respondent' contention that he was so ill that it was necessary to use the prohibited gate. An indication of why the prohibited gate was used appears from the fact that two than of cloth were recovered from the vehicle in which the respondent was trying to pass through the prohibited gate. I am, therefore, satisfied that the respondent committed wilful disobedience of the lawful orders of his employer. His action, thus, clearly falls under sub-clause (3) (a) of Standing Order 15.
4. The upshot of the above discussion is that I would set aside the impugned order of the learned Labour Court and allow the appeal.