' Appellants Sawal Faqir and Muhammad Naseem, who were employed in the respondent establishment as cleaner, air-conditioning Department, and operator, air-conditioning department, respectively were dismissed from service by the respondent establishment, with effect from 14th January, 1980 on the charge of going together to the office of the Electrical Engineer, Ansar Hussain, and misbehaving with him and using derogatory and abusive language against him when he expressed his inability to obtain for them and increase in wages demanded by them.
Both the appellants submitted grievance petitions to the learned IVth Labour Court which has dismissed the same, holding that the appellants had been duly found guilty of acts subversive of discipline in a domestic enquiry which was fairly and properly conducted in which they had been given due opportunity to defend themselves. The appellants have now come up in appeal to this Tribunal.
2. Mr. Mirza Muhammad Kazim, the learned counsel for the appellants, has assailed the impugned decision of the learned Labour Court on the ground that the appellants have been victimized on account of their Trade Union-activities and that the charges of committing acts subversive of discipline have not been duly proved against the appellants in the domestic enquiry. It has been claimed by appellant Sawal Faqir, in his grievance petition, that he was Joint Secretary of the Globe Textile Mills General Labour Union, while according to the grievance petition filed by appellant Muhammad Nasim, he was an active member of the said union. The mere fact, however, that the appellants were active members or even officers of Workers' Union in respondent establishment does not by itself establish or even indicate that, they have been victimized on account of their Trade Union activities. No presumption can be drawn, in the absence of any concrete evidence in this behalf, that there is a general tendency on the part of every Management to victimize any office-bearer of a Trade Union. No reason has been shown by the appellants that why they were selected by the Management for wrongful dismissal while the more important officer-bearers of the Trade Union were not touched. It was suggested by the two appellants, specially appellant Sawal Faqir, to the witnesses of the Management in the domestic enquiry that they had been pressed to resign from the Union bitt witnesses strongly denied such an imputation. The main evidence at the domestic enquiry was of Engineer Ansar Hussain and Head Electrician Aftab Ali Shah. While Engineer Ansar Hussain depose in detail about the incident and asserted that when he expressed his inability to help the appellants in their demand for an increase in salary after they had put in only 10 months service, both the appellants misbehaved with him and used abusive language and thumped the table in an aggressive mood. The Head Electrician Aftab Ali Shah did not see the entire incident but when he was going to the office of Engineer, Ansar Hussain, at about 9-00 a.m. He heard the two appellants raising their voices in dispute against Ansar Hussain and shouting that he should remember his words and they also gave him threats. Both the witnesses were cross-examined in detail by the appellants but they stood firm in their testimony. Mr. Mirza Muhammad Kazim submitted that there was material discrepancy in the testimony of these 2 witnesses for whereas according to Engineer, Ansar Hussain, the appellants first abused him and uttered threats to him and thereafter thumped the table, witness Aftab Ali Shah has made mention only of the use of threatening words by the appellants but has made no mention of the thumping of table by them, thereby on the one hand and contradicting Engineer Ansar Hussain not only regarding the sequence offences but also regarding the alleged thumping of the table by the appellants. I have carefully examined the evidence of Engineer Ansar Hussain before the Enquiry Officer. While, he does mention as the thumping of the table by the appellants after the use of aggressive words by them, it does not necessarily imply that the thumping of table was after the use of abusive language and uttering of threatening words. In fact his evidence suggests that after the thumping of the table also certain threats were held out against him by the appellants. Neither the Engineer, Ansar Hussain, nor Head Electrician Aftab Ali Shah are shown to have any animosity or hostility against the appellants. There is thus no valid reason why the evidence led before the Enquiry Officer should be disbelieved. I would therefore, concur in the view taken by the Enquiry Officer as well as the learned Labour Court that the misconduct of the appellants had been duly proved in the domestic enquiry and that before the orders of dismissal were passed in respect of the appellants, they were served with a second show-cause notice and their replies to the same were duly considered by the Management. The respondent-Management thus appears to have fulfilled the necessary requirements of law.
3. For the reasons discussed by me above, I find do merit in the 2 appeals and would dismiss the same in limine. Aappeals dismissed.