This appeal is directed against the decision of the learned VIth Labour Court , given on 14th December, 1981, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant challenging his dismissal from the service of the respondent company, vide order, dated 17th January, 1981
2. The facts which have given rise to the present appeal, shortly stated, are that admittedly the appellant was employed as a Three Sider in the Awami Textile Mills since 1978. According to the appellant, he was gate stopped by the management of the said mills on 31st January, 1979 by reason of a dispute with the management regarding illegal deduction of his wages since 1st October, 1978. The appellant claims that he had submitted an application against the illegal gate stoppage to management of Awami Textile Mills on 18th February, 1979, in consequence whereof he was sent a letter of enquiry on 3rd March. 1979, without any charge-sheet being served upon him.
He further claims that he appeared before the enquiry officer who recorded his statement and adjourned the enquiry for recording of de--fence evidence but he was thereafter not allowed to enter the mills' pre--mises and the subsequent proceedings took place in his absence. Ultimately, he was served with a second show-cause notice and although he submitted an explanation thereto, he was not taken on duty but was dismissed from service vide order, dated 17th, November, 1979. The appellant challenged the said order of dismissal through a grievance petition preferred before the learned Labour Court . In that grievance petition he prayed that the order of dismissal be set aside and that he may be re-instated in service with continuity in service and full back benefits. Long before the filing of the said grievance petition and even before the service of the enquiry letter, dated 3rd March, 1979, the appellant had admittedly joined the Diwan Textile Mills, the respondents herein, with effect from 23rd February, 1979. The appellant's appointment in the Diwan Textile Mills was made on the basis of his application, dated 22nd February, 1979. The grievance petition filed by the appellant against the Awami Textile Mills was decided by the learned Labour Court on 30th September, 1980. The learned Labour Court directed that the appellant be re-instated in the service of Awami Textile Mill but did not allow him back benefits on the ground that the appellant had been working in the Diwan Textile Mills for the past 13 months and that previously he had worked for 10 to 12 days in the Quetta Textile Mills. On the passing of the Labour Court 's order, in the case against Awami Textile Mills, the appellant approached the said mills for re- instatement in service. He admitted that the order for his re-instatement was received by him on 23rd -November,, 1980. Despite this order, the appellant continued to be in the employment f Diwan Textile Mills. His contention is that on or about 1/2 October. 1980, he had fallen ill and obtained B-2 Form from the Diwan Textile Mills. On the basis of the said Form, he took treatment from the Social Security Hopital from 1 /2nd October, 1980 to 22nd Decem--ber, 1980. In the meanwhile, the Diwan Textile Mills having come to know of the appellant's re-instement in service in the Awami Textile Mills, served a charge-sheet, dated 13th December, 1980, upon the appellant. A resigna--tion letter, bearing the same date on which the charge-sheet was served upon the appellant, was sent by the appellant to the Awami Textile Mills tendering his resignation from employment in the Awami Textile Mills on the ground of his alleged illness and treatment in the Social Security Hospital. This resignation letter was apparently received by the Awami Textile Mills on 20th December, 1980, as appears from the endorsement of the said mills on the resignation letter. The resignation was, however, accepted by the Awami Textile Mills with effect from 13th January, 1981. On the other hand, Diwan Textile Mills pursued the proceedings based on the charge-sheet, dated 13th December, 1980, against the appellant and after bolding a domestic enquiry against him dismissed him from service vide order, dated 17th, January, 1981. The appellant challenged the said order of dismissal before the learned Labour Court but the order was upheld by the learned Labour Court
3. Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi; the learned counsel for the appellant con--tended that no misconduct falling under Standing Order 15 has been esta--blished against the appellant. It is not disputed that during the period that the appellant was employed in the Awami Textile Mills he sought and obtained employment in the Diwan Textile Mills with effect from 23rd February, 1979. In fact in his explanation to the charge-sheet, dated 13th December, 1980, the appellant has admitted that he had been re-instated in the service of the Awami Textile Mills with effect from 24th November, 1980.
The appellant thus on the one hand had been re-instated in the service of the Awami Textile Mills with effect from the aforesaid date on the other hand he continued to be in the employment of the Diwan Textile Mills from where he had obtained a B-2 Form for treatment in the Social Security Hospital. He continued to enjoy the. Benefits of the employment in the Diwan Textile Mills as well as in the Awami Textille Mills till the submis--sion of his resignation application to the Awami Textile Mills which resignation application was received by the said mills on 17th December, 1980, some 4 days after the appellant was charged-sheeted by the Diwan Textile Mills. The dual employment of the appellant by the 2 textile mills was thus not only in contravention of section 48 of the Factories Act, 1934. But made the Diwan Textile Mills or alternatively the Awami Textile Mills liable for punishment for contravention of the provisions of the Factories Act. Thus a fraud was played upon the Diwan Textile Mills for had the said mills been aware of the true position they would not have continued the appellant in their service the moment the appellant was re-instated in the em-- ployment of the Awami Textile Mills by the decision of the learned Labour Court , dated 30th September, 1980. Furthermore, it was on the strength of the wrong employment in the Diwan Textile Mills that the appellant had obtained a B-2 Form from the said mills and wrongfully took treatment from the Social Security Hospital. Thereby the appellant also played fraud upon the Social Security Institution with indirect consequence on the Diwan Textile Mills. The action of the appellant thus put the Diwan Textile Mills into double jeopardy. This action of the appellant thus clearly falls within the mischeif of Standing Order 15 as it amounts to fraud and dis--honesty in connection with the employer's business. In the case of Opel Laboratories Ltd., v. Karachi Workers Union (1972 PLC 83), it. Was held by my learned predecessor that where a person below the age of 18 years sought and obtained employment on making false representation that he was above 18 years of age, and the action of such person could entail punishment of the employment for employing a minor person, such action of the worker constituted misconduct falling under Standing Order 15. In the instant case also the action of the appellant in seeking double employment could entail criminal prosecution and punishment of the respondent company.
4. The upshot of the above discussion is that I would concur in the findings of the learned Labour Court and find no merit in this appeal and would dismiss the same.