DECISION ' The appeal is directed against the order of the IInd Sind Labour Court, Karachi, dated 7th February, 1984, whereby the Labour Court dismissed the grievance application under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969, filed by the appellant.
2. The facts are that the appellant, Muhammad Ashraf was an employee of the respondents. It is alleged that he was an active member of the Trade Union and worked for the benefits of the workers employed by the respondents. Respondents being afraid of the appellant's popularity conspired to oust him out. He was, therefore, dismissed for misbehaviour and a domestic enquiry was held.
3. The stand of the respondents is that the appellant was charge-sheeted on 20th April, 1983. The charge-sheet, dated 20th April, 1983 recites those facts which were objectionable on the part of the appellant. It is alleged that the appellant on 19th April, 1983 left the place of his work and came to the machines being operated by an operator and forbid to operate the machines. One Supervisor, Mr. Ilyas was standing there and he told the appellant as to why he was preventing the operator from running the machines and the duty hours are yet to be completed. On this, the appellant manhandled Mr. Ilyas and caught hold of his collar and gave 2/3 slaps with the result that the collar of his shirt torn. This conduct demostrated, was not conclusive to the proper work and hence on the next day he was charge-sheeted. An enquiry was conducted and he was ordered to be dismissed. The further allegation made by the appellant was denied by the respondents and they flatly denied that there was any conspiracy against him and nor the management was jealous of the popularity of the appellant.
4. The appellant filed his affidavit in evidence and he was duly cross-examined. He filed further affidavits of Mir Afzal and Haq Nawaz but subsequently dropped Haq Nawaz. Mr. Afzal was cross- examined by the learned representative for the respondents. On behalf of the respondents, Naser Waheed and the Enquiry Officer were examined and they were cross-examined by the appellant.
3. The learned Advocates, Mr. Shafi Muhammad for the appellant and Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani for the respondents were heard.
6. The contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is that he was victimized. This fact is not borne out from the evidence of the witness and the fact is not denied categorically by the witnesses of the respondents. It is not proved that the appellant enjoyed popularity among the workers. The contention raised by the learned Advocate of the appellant was that the names of witnesses were not disclosed in the charge-sheet nor the list of names was given to him and this plea is rejected by the Labour Court as the same was not advanced or raised in his grievance petition. There is no requirement of Law whereby the names of the witnesses are to be mentioned in the charge-sheet or in the show-cause notice. The evidence of Ilyas is clear. The witness Pervaiz Khan, Allah Yar, Muhammad Shabbir and Sher Alam were examined and it was enquired by the Enquiry Officer if there is any objection by the appellant to examine these witnesses. The appellant had no objection. The evidence of Ilyas was criticized by the learned counsel inasmuch as he called Ilyas as the stooge of the respondents and there was a pre-planned conspiracy. It is not made out from the evidence of Ilyas on the circumstances that surrounded the evidence to show that he was inspired witness and his evidence was false. P.W. Abdul Rauf had supported the evidence of Ilyas. I have gone through the evidence recorded by the Enquiry Officer in the domestic enquiry and believe that evidence of Ilyas as Supported by P. W. Abdul Rauf is trustworthy and could be relied upon fully and fair opportunity was given to the appellant to cross-examine the witnesses.
7. The offence committed by the appellant is precisely to catch hold of the collar of Ilyas and delivered 2/3 slaps and tearing his shirt collar. This behaviour of the appellant was clearly a misconduct. It is also misconduct by him to prevent machine operator and to stop the work when the time was not to close the machines. The order of the learned Labour Court has been perused by me and there is nothing to interfere with the order of the learned Labour Court and accordingly 1 dismiss the appeal.