' This appeal arises from the decision, dated 24th June, 1976 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 3, Lyallpur (now Faisalabad), whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re-instatement was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was a Boiler operator and on 15th August, 1975 when his duty was from 10-00 p. m. To 6-00 a. m. At about 5-00 a. m. It was found that the pressure of the steam in the boiler had gone down and the sulphur pump was not spilling sulphur. The appellant, according to him, made efforts with the help of his colleagues to make the sulphur plant refunction but in vain. He is alleged to have informed his superiors about the matter, Sana Ullah, Foreman and Muhammad Younas, Mechanical Engineer, on inspection found that the water column was empty and the sulphur lines choked, resulting in the non-functioning of the plant. Sana Ullah, Foreman reported that the incident had taken place due to negligence of the appellant. The charge-sheet given to the appellant reads as under :- "It has been reported that on 15th August, 1975 at about 5-30 a. m. While you were on duty in the Sulphuric Acid Plant, water totally exhausted in the boiler which resulted in the choking of sulphur pipelines, failure of the sulphur pump and damage of the boiler tubes. There was thus a loss of production and damage to the plant due to gross negligence of duty on your part. You are, therefore, required to explain in writing within 48 hours of the receipt of this letter, why disciplinary action should not be taken against you for this act of misconduct, as per rules."
' The reply to the charge-sheet was to the effect that the appellant had at 5-30 a. m. Noticed that the pressure of the steam had gone down whereupon he informed the Shift Incharge that he tried his best but the sulphur pump did not function again due to shortage of steam, that the appellant reported the matter to Sana Ullah, Foreman, and Muhammad Younis, Chemical Engineer, who observed that the steam pressure was 35 pounds and the water level was two and a half inches.
The appellant further explained in the reply that the lowest tube leaked out as it was fitted with a ring. He further said that he was not responsible, because he had been keeping watch throughout his duty hours and the water level had not gone down. The reply of the appellant was not found satisfactory and an enquiry was held against him, which culminated in his dismissal. On the objection of the appellant twice the enquiry board was changed and ultimately the enquiry was made by Ch. Anwar Hussain, Assistant Mechnical Engineer and Muhammad Shafique Qureshi, Assistant Manager. The appellant had cross-examined all the five prosecution witnesses and examined equal number of witnesses in defence. The finding of the enquiry board was to the effect that the boiler being of a very small capacity needed very vigilent attention during its operation, which was not given, resulting in damage to it. It was also observed that the practice of continuous feed of water with a little opening of bye-pass drain valve made the boiler operator lazy, who had gone to sleep while on duty, resulting in shortage of water in the boiler. It was also remarked that the shortage of water in the boiler was caused due to unattended operation of the boiler operator and invigilence of the plant operator. The cause of huge damage, according to the enquiry report, was that when the boiler operator, the appellant came to know of the water shortage, he alongwith others took immediate action for filling water in the boiler with the result that the steam pressure in the lines and feed tank leaked and thus the attempt did not help in raising the steam pressure. In their opinion boiler tubes started leaking by filling cold water in them which due to sudden change of temperature caused severe uneven stresses in the boiler with ultimate result of a big damage to the tubes and thus the plant had to be stopped for replacement and repairs of boiler tubes for about 38 hours. According to the enquiry board, the omission on the part of the appellant was also against the standing instructions contained in Annexure 'A' and amounted to wilful disobedience of the lawful orders of his superiors. Damage was calculated to Rs, 73,000.
3. Previously the appeal was accepted by my learned predecessor (Mr. Justice M. Jamil Asghar) and the appellant was ordered to be reinstated but the said order was set aside in writ petition and the appeal remanded for re-decision.
4. ' The ground on which the water level of the boiler had gone down is that the appellant had gone to sleep and thus ceased to attend the boiler. The parties are at variance on this point and the appellant asserts that he did not go to sleep, whereas the case of the respondent is that at a distance of about 100 feet, the appellant was found sleeping. The case is a technical one and unless considered from that point of view, it is difficult to come to a correct approach. Many controls and meters are installed at the boiler and the operator has to keep strict watch upon them to see that they are indicating the correct position or have started showing abnormal conditions.
For this purpose alone the boiler operator is on duty. If he remains present and vigilent and has an eye open the meters and controls, abnormal charges in them cannot escape his notice. He has not to keep an eye open then but only periodical glance at the controls and meters can tell him whether the things are normal or any abnormality has come into being. As soon as some abnormality is noticed and measures are taken to bring the things to normal position, no question of damage arises. The boiler operator is on duty only for the purpose to see that if there is any abnormality, he knows what to do to bring the things to their normal position. If he is absent from there in person or in mind for a long time, he is not in a position to notice the abnormality with the result that he is not in position to do what is required to bring the things to their normal position.
There is a water glass fixed upon the boiler which indicates the quantity of the water in the boiler. .Lf the quantity of the water goes down from the required quantity, the water glass indicates in this way that the level of water comes down in it. If the boiler operator is attentive, he will at once notice the change and would realize that the quantity of the water in the boiler has come down, therefore, he would at once manage to make the level upto the mark by the addition of water. If water is added as soon as the level in the meter comes down, small quantity of water will be required to make up the deficiency, with the result that there will be no decrease in the pressure of steam, with the result that the pressure of the steam would remain constant and will not go down. Of course if the boiler operator is physically or mentally absent for a long time, there will be none to see that the water glass is showing lesser water level and since the water will not be added, the level would continue going down with the result that when very little water is left in the boiler the formation of the steam would come down considerably or would totally stop resulting in decrease in the steam pressure. The sulphur pump functions with the steam pressure. If the steam pressure goes down considerably and below the critical point, the sulphur pumps would stop functioning resulting in non-supply of sulphur adversely affecting the heating process of the boiler, which would reciprocally further reduce the formation of steam and thus further decreasing the steam pressure.
It is thus evident that the appellant was either physically or mentally absent, therefore, he could not watch the water-gauge and thus did not make up the deficiency in the water within the safe extremes, with the result that the steam pressure went down considerably. The inference is, therefore, irresistible that he went to sleep and thus was mentally absent from duty although personally he was present at some distance from the place of his duty. A person who has a sense of duty tries to avoid sleeping even if he is overcome by it but a person who is not dutiful he instead may invite it. If on the place of duty the appellant had gone to sleep, there would be scope to say that he was overcome by sleep, but since according to the evidence, he at a distance of i00 feet from the place of his duty was found sleeping, it is apparent that he had left the place of duty in order to go to sleep undisturbed. The enquiry had rightly found that since there was arrangement of automatic supply of water to the boiler, this made the appellant lay and be went to sleep thinking that water would go pouring into the water tank according to the automatic system. But if the water in the tank finishes the pump cannot extract water from the tank and to pour into the boiler. Further, the damage was caused to the machinery as observed by the enquiry board, when the appellant woke up and found that the water glass was empty and the steam pressure was considerably down, he with the help of his companions started putting water into the boiler. As considerable water was put without cooling the tubes, it caused damage to the pipelines which before that were very hot due to being empty, with the result that the water started leaking from them. According to the evidence, some tubes were repaired which were found to be repairable and the rest were placed. The sulphur lines choked because there was no pressure in the steam to move the sulphur pump properly. The sulphur, therefore, instead of flowing through the sulphur lines remained in them and was solidified blocking the lines. When one is disputed in the night shift, he knows that he has not to go to sleep and had to remain waking, therefore, there could be no apology for the appellant to have gone to sleep for being overpowered by it. We all have experience that the students during studying stage wash their face whenever they are overcome by sleep. This is apparent that this process is done only by that person who wants to remain waking. The appellant, therefore, could avoid sleeping by many artificial means, provided he wanted not to go to sleep. So, this plea is not acceptable that the appellant was overcome by sleep.
5. Habitual negligence is quite separate from neglect of work. For neglect of work habit is not necessary. The word 'or' is disjunctive and not conjunctive, meaning that the word 'habitual' is used only for negligence and not for the words 'neglect of work'. Habitual negligence means working negligently, therefore, only that man commits misconduct who is in the habit of working negligently. But single instance of neglect of work is sufficient to constitute the misconduct. Neglect of work obviously means neglecting work or in other words, not doing the work. The appellant by going to sleep at a distance of 100 feet from the place of his duty neglected his duty and thus committed misconduct. I do not find any force in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the allegation made against the appellant falls under Standing Order 15(1)(ii)(a) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. The appellant did not only disregard or disobey the rules or orders but rather he disobeyed the orders of his superiors which were that he during his duty hours had to remain at the place of duty and watching the control and meters and to do the needful when it was required. His very duty was to remain at the place of his duty and to watch the meters and controls vigilently. So, his act falls under Standing Order 15(3)(a) also. Even otherwise the misconducts enumerated in B Standing Order 15(3) are not exhaustive and any other acts which though are not covered by clause (3) may amount to misconduct, if otherwise they can be said to be misconduct.
6. So far as the fact is concerned that the appellant went to sleep, it stands supported by the prosecution evidence produced before the enquiry board. The mere fact that some other persons were also sleeping would make no difference, because the requirement is not that only the appellant should not have gone to sleep. Since others were not responsible for the damage, therefore, they were not proceeded against for neglect of duty. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that although P. W. 2 stated that the appellant was sleeping and that Rana Sana Ullah awake him, yet Sana Ullah who appeared as P. W. 5 before the enquiry board did not say anything in this respect. The omission on the part of Sana Ullah to say so does not mean that the appellant was not sleeping. If Sana Ullah had stated to the contrary, that he did not find the appellant sleeping the evidence of P. W. 2 may have been doubted. The witnesses examined by the appellant no doubt stated that the appellant informed the higher authorities about the fact that the water level in the water glass was low but even if it be taken that this was so it would not mean that he did not go to sleep. D. Ws. Also stated that the appellant was not found sleeping but this evidence was rightly discarded by the enquiry board. If the appellant had been waking and vigilent, the water level would not have gone down, nor the boiler damaged. This is true that according to the evidence, sulphur was also put in the sulphur tank, but there is no scope to say that the boiler was damaged and the sulphur choked into the sulphur lines on account of the fact that sulphur extinguished in the tank. The persons who were on duty to look after the sulphur side of the machinery put sulphur in the tank to absolve themselves of the responsibility because sulphur was not being spilled out by the sulphur pump. As I have discussed above, due to very low pressure of the steam sulphur was not being pushed through the lines with the result that it choked in between them. Due to some trouble in the sulphur pump or the sulphur lines, pipes of the boiler could not be damaged, nor the water level could go down, rather the water would not have extinguished due to non-acceleration of fire. The function of the sulphur is to accelerate the fire. If sulphur is not being spilled out, obviously, the degree of beat be less resulting in keeping the water below the boiling point and thus the water instead of being decreased, its quantity would have remained intact.
Again due to lesser heat the tubes of the boiler would not be damaged, nor they would become empty. The same became empty because there was no water. It is, therefore, apparent that due to the decrease in the water quantity, the water level went down, the pipes of water became empty and thus were very much heated up and when all of a sudden cold water was passed through them when the water was put into the boiler, they collapsed. As I have mentioned above, the sulphur side of the machinery had ceased to work due to lack of pressure of the steam and the pressure of the steam had gone down since the water in boiler decreased. So, only the appellant was responsible and the damage was caused due to the fact that he did not attend the boiler water glass and controls.
7. As a result of the observations made above, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss it.