DECISION ' This appeal is directed against the decision, dated 13th of January, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No, 5, Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement in service was dismissed.
2. The appellant was a gunman in respondent No, 2 Bank and from where he was dismissed from service after being charge-sheeted and an enquiry held against him on the allegation that he had grabbed with the Manager, held his collar of his shirt and tried to slap. The prosecution story is that certain uniforms of the appellant and his co-gunmen had been given to some tailor for preparation of clothes, and the appellant had asked the Manager to deliver the payment of bills so that the clothes be brought. Due to rush of work, the Manager was busy when he asked the appellant to wait till he was free from the customers. But the appellant insisted saying how he could refuse to deliver the payment of bills, whereupon the Manager asked him not to abuse improperly and learn meanings. The appellant became furious but the persons present there intervened and pushed him back. The Manager asked him to assign his duty of guarding the premises, but the appellant replied that his duty had finished, therefore, he sat near the counter.
When the Manager was free from his work, the appellant again asked him to deliver the bills but the Manager said that according to the instructions payment could be made after the clothes had been brought. At this, the appellant grabbed with the Manager, held his collar and tried to slap him.
The witnesses intervened and the appellant left the premises. The defence version is different, which is contained in the defence statement of the appellant. The statement of the appellant before the Enquiry Officer was that the Manager said him "badtameez" and after some time when the appellant inquired from the Manager the meanings of "badtameez" he abused his daughter, whereupon the appellant grabbed with him. The Manager had appeared before the Enquiry Officer.
Munir Ahmad, Mian Muhammad Farooq, Cashier and Abdul Aziz, Assistant were examined as prosecution witnesses. The appellant examined two witnesses in defence, namely, Muhammad Hussain Raza, Cashier and Muhammad Sarwar, guard. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is the same as narrated in the facts of the prosecution case above. Muhammad Hussain Raza, Cashier stated that when at 11.00 a. m. On the Thursday he was closing the cash he heard the noise near the table of the Manager and saw Munir asking the appellant to sit down. But he did not know what talk occurred between the Manager and the appellant and heard only this much that the Manager was saying to the appellant "friend you are very mannerless" "9.16{{TABLE TEXT}}r, Muhammad Sarwar stated that on Thursday at 09-00 a. m. The appellant had delivered to him the bills of the uniforms, which he delivered to Abdul Aziz, who prepared the pay orders and delivered it to him and he (the witness) placed them on the table of the Manager for signatures. He further stated that after a short while he asked the Manager twice to sign the pay-orders as it was Thursday, but the Manager did not give any reply. He also stated that after 11-00 a. m. He appellant closed the door of the Bank as working-hours come to an end and asked the Manager, Mr. Sheerazi to sign the pay orders, but the Manager did not give any reply. For the second time, the appellant repeated the same thing, but the Manager asked the appellant to sit-down. He further stated that when the appellant again asked the Manager "Sir, sign the pay orders so that the clothes be taken from the tailor", the Manager's reply was that "first of all uniforms be brought and after that pay orders would be delivered". The appellant said that why the pay orders could not signed and what was the deficiency in it, where upon the Manager told him "mannerless" "go and sit-down". He further said that he thereafter went away for taking case and when came at 2-30 p. m. Mr. Farooq was holding the appellant at the gate and asked him (the witness) to take away the appellant. He further said that he was not present when the altercation had taken place.
3. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that firstly the Manager said to the appellant that he was "badtameez" and when he inquired the meanings of "badtameez" he abused his daughter, upon-which the appellant lost his temper and grabbed with the Manager. This much is correct that the Manager called the appellant "badtameez", because the Manager in cross-examination admitted this thing saying that he had asked the appellant not to ''badtameezi". Farooq Ahmad P.
W. Also said that in his presence the appellant asked the Manager to explain what were the meanings of "badtameez". But it does not appear to be correct that the Manager had abused the daughter of the appellant. Except the statement of the appellant, there is no such thing in the statement of any of the prosecution or defence witnesses. The Manager had categorically denied that he had abused the daughter of the appellant. If it had been correct, the prosecution witnesses would have stated so. The prosecution evidence shows that the appellant was out of way insisting that the pay orders be delivered to him. This actuated the Manager to say that appellant was "badtameez". These remarks were not made without any reason. Since the appellant had acted in an objectionable manner, therefore, he was told that he was "badtameez". The appellant grabbed with the Manager on account of these remarks but since he had invited the remarks he was not justified in loosing his temper and grabbing with the Manager. In the grievance notice and the grievance petition, the appellant did not say that the Manager had abused his daughter. There is no mention of any kind of abuse in the grievance petition but in the grievance notice it is mentioned that the Manager bad abused him but did not say that his daughter was abused. This plea is, therefore, an afterthought. If the Manager was insisting that the pay orders would be given after collecting the clothes, the appellant instead of picking the quarrel with him should have asked him to bring the clothes as the tailor was not willing to deliver the clothes without getting remuneration. Not only that the appellant misbehaved and committed disorderly, but even he neglected his work and when he was asked to do his duty as still the transaction of cash was going on but be refused in saying that his /3 duty-hours had been finished and he was not justified in refusing the work. Since the business of transaction was going on, he was bound to remain on duty even though the working hours had come to an end.
4. In the above discussed circumstances, the appellant was rightly dismissed from his service and his grievance petition was rightly! Disallowed. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed.