1. This is an appeal against an Order dated the 3rd of February 1970 of the learned Labour Court (Central Zone), Lahore, whereby the Court ordered the re-instatement of Lall Khan on the ground that he was given only a routine show-- cause notice without the Enquiry Officer's report and ordered the re-instatement of Lal Khan with full back benefits.
2. Mr. Naz, the learned representative for the respondent contends that the order of dismissal of Lal Khan was bad not only on the ground that the show-cause notice was not accompanied by the Enquiry Officer's adverse report but also on the ground that no case was made out within the meaning of Standing Order 15 (3) (a) of 1968. It reads as under: "The following acts and omissions shall be treated as misconduct-
(a) Wilful insubordination or disobedience, alone or in com--bination with others, to any lawful and reasonable order of a superior."
3. Relying on the above provision of law, Mr. Naz has raised two contentions namely that on the evidence on record it cannot be said (1) that the disobedience was wilful and (2) that the order to the Driver to issue tickets was not reasonable. 1 propose to dispose of these points separately.
4. Whether the disobedience of the order was wilful or not is question of fact. Me disobedience of an order cannot 'b said to be wilful. In the present case it appears from the two charge-sheets, which have been produced by the respondent before the learned Court issued against the cleaners the charge---sheets which are at pages 25 and 27 of the record of the Labour Court) that they were charged for refusing to issue tickets. In this connection a reference may also be made to the observa--tion of Mr. Mushtaq Hussain Munir in 1968 PLC 476. It runs as under: "It is undoubtedly true that the ticket books are issued by the Department in the name of the Driver and so far as the Department is concerned it is the driver, who is responsible for sale of tickets en- route in all District Services. In practice, however, we find that it is very seldom that the drivers sell the tickets themselves, these are Invariably sold by the Cleaners."
5. There is nothing before me to take exception to the remark made by the learned Chairman of the Industrial Court. At any rate it appears to me that the Department was aware that the drivers had been taking help from Cleaners to issue tickets. In the instant case Lal Khan followed the old practice and asked the Cleaner to issue tickets. The charge against the Driver was that he had contravened the instructions of the Depart--ment namely Rule 81 whereby he has to issue tickets to the passengers. In the circumstances that I have mentioned above it cannot be said that the Driver wilfully disobeyed the order of his superiors. He only followed the old practice. In these circumstances no case of misconduct is made out against Lal Khan. As to whether the order of the superiors to ask the Driver to issue tickets was reasonable there is not sufient material to hold that the order was not reasonable. Tile con--tention that the Drivers cannot drive and issue erase at the same time does not necessarily mean that the order is unreasonable considering the fact that the Drivers when issuing tickets were required to stop the bus and then issue tickets. The Drivers were not required to perform both the duties at one and the same time. He had to stop tie bus and then issue tickets. It can be said that the duties assigned to the Drivers to issue tickets is very inconvenient one. It affects the efficiency of the Driver and also involve more waste of time than if some one else was to issue tickets. The particulars on which this Court may come to the conclusion that the duty assigned to the Driver to issue tickets is unreasonable are made out on the record. In these circumstances I am unable to hold that the duty assigned to the Driver to issue tickets was un--reasonable.
6. For the reasons given above I would maintain the order of the learned Labour Court and dismiss the Appeal.