' The appeal captioned above challenges the decision, dated 5-6-1983 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 3, Ferozewala at Lahore, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellants for their re-instatement in service.
2. The allegation against the appellants was that they had, on 20-3-1982, beaten Saeed Tariq, a co- worker at 6.45 p.m. Outside the factory gate. The appellants admit the incident but contend that Saeed Tariq had beaten Iqbal and the rest of the appellants rescued the latter from the clutches of the former. All the prosecution witnesses examined at the enquiry, except Saeed Tariq did not implicate, Maqbool Ahmed, Abdul Ghafoor and Muhammad Riaz Shahid, appellants. The appellants took up the plea like Iqbal that Saeed Tariq fought with Iqbal and they separated the two. So, is the defence evidence. Since the statement of Saeed Tariq does not stand corroborated by the evidence of other prosecution witnesses, this is not believable that Abdul Ghafoor, Muhammad Riaz Shahid and Maqbool Ahmed had beaten Saeed Tariq. However, this stands established that Iqbal, appellant did beat. Even if it be said that on being provoked by Saeed Tariq, Iqbal beat him, the beating given by lqbal amounts to an offence under section 323, P.P.C.
3. The act done by Iqbal no doubt was an offence under section 323, P.P.C. Yet it did not amount to misconduct. According to Standing Order 15(3) (h), riotous or disorderly behaviour is misconduct, if committed in the factory premises and during working hours. Admittedly the incident took place outside the factory and after working hours. The employer should not have felt offended. The offence was not of moral turpitude. Man is a fighting animal and on being provoked naturally retaliates. The employer is not responsible if some incident occurs outside the factory. Iqbal duly observed the factory rules and did not do any objectionable act within the factory and during working hours and retaliated as soon as Saeed Tariq came out. The order of dismissal, therefore, was not sustainable and the learned lower Court wrongly dismissed the petition.
4. I do not find any force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent that the appeal is liable to be dismissed on the short ground that separate appeals were not brought. The ruling cited by him i,e, AIR 1960 Mad. Is not helpful.
5. As a result the appeal is accepted and setting aside the order of dismissal and the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the appellants are directed to be re-instated in service. They are not entitled to back benefits as it was not stated before learned lower Court that the appellants remained unemployed and for the reason that law was taken in hands by Muhammad Iqbal, appellant.