' This appeal is directed against the order of IIIrd Sind Labour Court at Karachi, vide its order, dated 21-12-1983, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant, Mohammad Iqbal.
2. The facts are that the appellant was appointed as a Junior Assistant in the year 1974 by Messrs Cotton Export Corporation of Pakistan Limited. He was subsequently promoted in the year 1976 as Commercial Assistant. His service record of 8 years with the respondents was unblemished.
3. An official function for distribution of awards was held on 8-4-1982, on the 2nd Floor of the Office building of the respondent corporation. All the employees and some dignatories were invited and a programme was chalked out for making speeches grant of awards and serving the refreshments.
The allegation was that the appellant and other workers created rowdyism and chaotic conditions.
They raised provocative slogans objecting and challenging the criteria for giving awards. It is also an allegation that they misbehaved with senior officers and they destroyed the refreshments, and had committed acts of riotous, disorderly behaviour, subversive of discipline and as such the appellant was charge-sheeted. The reply of the appellant, Annexure 'B' was that the incident which took place on 8-4-1982, was being exploited, he was innocent for any act of indiscipline but the fact is that behind the show, there is an element of victimizing him for his trade union activities. It was not an official function and was not held within the premises of the Corporation. The appellant was a mere invitee and he did not attend the function in the capacity of worker. In other words, the appellant replied to the charge-sheet and in the reply he dubbed the function as a Drama staged to glorify the officers and to favour the stooges of the management.
' The explanation of the appellant was considered to be insufficient and a departmental enquiry was ordered in which the Enquiry Officer found the appellant guilty and he was dismissed by an order, dated 10-4-1983. The delay in passing the dismissal order was due to the fact that the office- bearers of the union had filed a complaint before the National Industrial Relations Commission challenging the enquiry proceeding against the office-bearers of the union as an unfair labour practice. The complaint with N.I.R.C. Was finally dismissed where after the dismissal order was passed. The appellant sent a grievance notice, Annexure 'B' to the application in which he made some allegations against the management in which the only ground was that the dismissal order was male fide and the grievance notice was rejected by the management by a letter, Annexure 'F' to the application, hence, the grievance petition in the Labour Court below.
4. I have heard the learned counsel, Mr. S.P. Lodhi for the appellant and Mr. Samiullah Khan for the Management. Mr. Lodhi challenged the enquiry, as such, by an Enquiry Officer who was himself a witness. He stated that it was improper. The second point that he raised in his arguments was that the place where the function was held was not a part of the establishment, hence no misconduct was committed. The third point was that the incident had not taken place during working hours and, therefore, the misconduct did not fall within the definition of Standing Order 15(3)(h). Lastly, it was argued that there was no positive evidence with regard to any damage caused to the furniture or to the eatables and the acts of violence were not proved.
5. The learned Labour Court answered each point separately but observed as follows:- "However, I have perused the enquiry papers thoroughly and find that there is enough evidence on record with regard to disorderly and riotous behaviour and the findings of the Enquiry Officer are well argued and not at all perverse."
6. I have gone through the record and perused the impugned order. The Enquiry Officer was none else but a person who attended the function. There was no doubt, that incident of rowdyism and hooting other damages caused during the riotous behaviour of these invitees at took place. But it is to be established beyond any reasonable doubt that the appellant himself played part with regard to the rowdyism or the time of function. The role played by the appellant must be pin-pointed. The lower Court has answered and replied the objections raised by the learned counsel. Mr. S.P. Lodhi for the appellant. But, what I find that the punishment given to the appellant is very harsh while the punishment could have been the milder as contemplated by Standing Order 15(2). I consider the broad facts in this case that the appellant has served the respondent-corporation for 8 years and he has earned a promotion also in the year 1976. His past record does not show any subversive activities or acts of indiscipline. I am, therefore, inclined to allow this appeal and the appellant be reinstated. The only punishment which could be given to him would be that he be paid 30% of the back benefits. The adjudication should be equitable and fair.
' The appeal is accordingly allowed.