1. ' This petition under section 35-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 has been filed by the applicant against the respondents praying therein that he be reinstated in the service with full back benefits.
2. ' The facts of the case briefly are that the applicant was the permanent workman of the respondents and performed his duties satisfactorily. That on 10-12-1983 and 11-12-1983 he was served two charge-sheets containing incorrect and false charges and further that the so-called charges levelled against the applicant related to incidents outside the factory and did not amount to misconduct as per the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. The applicant further submitted that the respondents neither issued the second show-case notice nor supplied the enquiry proceedings and enquiry report and dismissed his from service on 11-1-1984. He further submitted that his request for change of Enquiry Officer was also turned down. A grievance notice was sent by him which was replied to by the respondents but the same was not satisfactory. Hence the above petition.
3. ' The respondents admitted the employment of the applicant as Driver w.e.f. 6-1-1983 to 11-1-1984.
4. They denied that the applicant was issued charge-sheets on false and fabricated grounds and submitted that the applicant committed misconduct and therefore he was charge-sheeted. It was further submitted that one of the incidents took place inside the respondent's establishment while the other incident occurred in respondent's vehicle outside the premises. The explanation submitted by the applicant to the charge-sheets were not found satisfactory and therefore two separate domestic enquiries were initiated against him wherein he was found guilty in respect of both the charge-sheets and was subsequently dismissed from service. They further submitted that they never employed 49 or more workers at any time and the provisions of Standing Order 15 of the West Pakistan Industrial & Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 were never applicable to them. They further submitted that the ground for change of the Enquiry Officer was frivolous and therefore no change was made. They claimed that the grievance notice of the applicant was satisfactorily replied by them and prayed that the petition under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969 be dismissed.
5. ' The applicant examined himself and filed his affidavit-in-evidence wherein the facts narrated by him in the petition under section 25-A I.R.O. Were reproduced. He was cross-examined by the learned Advocate for the respondents. On behalf of the respondents Mr. Salim Adil, Steno-Typist and Secretary to the Executive Director of the respondents as well as the Enquiry Officer was examined and filed his affidavit-in-evidence. He was cross-examined by the learned Advocate for the applicant. The parties did not adduce any other evidence on their behalf.
6. ' I have heard the arguments of the learned Advocate for the applicant and the respondent and have also perused the evidence on record.
7. ' The respondents in their reply statement specifically stated that they never employed 49 or more workers in their factory and that the provisions of the Standing Order 15 of the Standing Orders Ordinance are not applicable to their establishment. It was necessary for the applicant to have adduced evidence to the effect that the respondents employed 49 or more workers in their establishment so as to establish the application of Standing Order 15 of the Standing Orders Ordinance on the respondent's establishment. However, there is nothing on record to prove the employment of 49 or more workers in the respondent's' establishment. The respondents were under no obligation to charge-sheet the applicant and to hold domestic enquiries against him as the provisions of Standing Order 15 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 do not A apply to their establishment and they could have dispense with the service of the applicant under Standing Order 12(3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance without complying with the requirement of Standing Order 15 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968.
8. ' From perusal of the cross-examination of the applicant it is established beyond any doubt that he received two charge-sheets, dated 10-12-1983 and 11-12-1983 as well as two letters of enquiries. He also produced the enquiry proceedings of both the enquiries and admitted that each page of the enquiry proceedings was signed by him. From the above it is established that the applicant participated in both the enquiries and was afforded full and fair opportunities to defend himself.
9. Even otherwise the charges of misconduct levelled against the applicant in two charge-sheets stands proved in the domestic enquiries. The applicant also failed to prove that the directions given to him the refusal of which resulted in charge-sheet, dated 11-12-1983 was unlawful or against the provisions of any law. The contention that the incident which resulted in the charge-sheet, dated 10-12-1983 was committed outside the factory premises and therefore, did not amount to misconduct is also fallacious and untenable inasmuch as abusing and slapping the Clerk of company while he was accompanying the applicant in the respondent's vehicle for their work amounted to an act subversive of discipline and it was not necessary that it should have been committed within the factory premises so as to amount to misconduct within Standing Order 15 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968.
10. ' The dismissal of the applicant cannot be said to be illegal, mala fide or by way of victimization and no exception can be taken to it.
11. ' Accordingly I dismissed the petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.