DECISION ' This appeal was heard by me on 17th December, 1984 then, it was adjourned till 13th December, 1985 when the order was announced. The appeal was allowed and the reasons thereof are as under.
2. The facts are that Muhammad Shakil, the appellant was employed in the Star Textile Mills since the month of August, 1967. He was allotted a quarter in the Mills Colony under a licence which specifically provided that whenever required by the company, the appellant would forthwith quit and deliver possession of the quarter to the company. Subsequently a notice was served on the appellant on 29th March, 1981 to vacate the quarter. The drastic action was taken because Shakil Ahmed could not pay Rs, 35 as a rent per month as he was paying Rs, 12 per month as a rent. His non-payment of the enhancement rent was due to the fact that his pay was the same and he could not afford the same. The notice was served on 29th March, 1981 which was received by the appellant but the same was ignored. He was charge-sheeted on 8th June, 1981 for the noncompliance of the lawful and reasonable orders of the Management. A domestic enquiry was held, by which subsequently, despite the promise of the appellant that he would vacate the quarter, he was dismissed on 8th February, 1982. The appellant filed a grievance petition that he was victimized due to the hostility of the General Secretary of the C. B. A. Towards him. This grievance petition was dismissed on 4th November, 1982. The appeal before this Tribunal was also dismissed in limine. A Constitutional Petition was filed before the Sind High Court, Karachi. The Hon'ble High Court observed that both the lower Courts below had not adverted to two all important aspects of the case, namely :-
(i) Whether the order of vacation of the quarter after the expiry of 14 years while the petitioner was still in service without assigning any reason, was a 'reasonable' order though it may be lawful order.
(ii) whether the punishment of 'dismissal was warranted' in the circumstances of the case or some lesser punishment could have served the purpose.
' The case was remanded to the Labour Court to deal with the above 2 questions after providing both the parties an opportunity of adducing additional evidence. The additional evidence of one Muhammad Mushtaq, the then secretary of the Union was adduced. His evidence is that the appellant started to misuse the quarter, inasmuch as, outsiders used to live in the said quarter for which he had complained to the Company.
3. I have perused the impugned order and have also heard the learned Advocates of the parties.
4. The dictionary meaning of the word 'reasonable' is "endowed with reason, rational, acting according to reason, agreeable to reason. Just, not excessive, moderate". It appears that the company was well within its bounds under the indenture of licence. Annexures 8 to the reply statement, under clause 18 of which the licensee was deemed to reside in the quarter only on sufferance and the company was entitled to cancel the leave and the linence at its discretion without assigning any reason whatsover even if he continued to be an employee of the company.
5. ' The Hon'ble High Court directed the fresh assessment of the circumstances of the present case and to find out whether the vacating of the quarter under those circumstances was reasonable although the orders by the company to vacate may be lawful. There is no dispute that the company can ask, in its discretion, the appellant to vacate the quarter for one reason or the other but what is to be seen is whether the orders issued by the company against the appellant were at all reasonable. Whether the orders were arbitrary, vindictive and smack of undue authority. The fact is that the rent of the quarter was enhanced from Rs, 12 to Rs, 35 which the appellant was not able to pay or correspondingly there was no increase in his pay. Now he (appellant) due to lack of funds could not vacate the quarter. This action of the appellant was deemed to be disobedience.
The disobedience in service matters is quite a separate phenomenon than the disobedience of the company for vacating the quarter. The vacation of the quarter is not connected with the service conditions and the disobedience thereof. On the face of it, the orders issued by the Management were arbitrarily and even if the employee has not honoured those orders he could not be answerable to a domestic' enquiry and the guilt of disobedience be proved against him. The appellant had not disobeyed those orders which are connected with his service conditions.
Therefore, although it would be lawful and according to law to order the vacation of the quarter, but the same is arbitrarily and undue show of power. It has been argued by the learned Advocate Mr. Shafique Qureshi that ultimate remedy lies in the Civil Court to get the quarter vacated. It is quite lawful that the Management may order to vacate the quarter but who would enforce it and what is the procedure with the company to get the orders of ejectment enforced. For that, necessarily the Civil Court powers are to be invoked.
6. So far the domestic enquiry and the dismissal of the appellant is concerned, this method to force the appellant to vacate the quarter is unreasonable, unwarranted. The Secretary of the Union, Muhammad Mushtaq, has levelled allegations against the appellant that some outsiders are invited to live in the said quarter. This is an afterthought. The appellant is an old man and it was never alleged against him such a misconduct.
7. It can now clearly be seen that the domestic enquiry and the dismissal of the appellant was not warranted due to the question of vacating the quarter. The vacating order was issued altogether separate and not connected with the service condition. The main circumstance is that the appellant lived in the said quarter for 14 full years and was still in service when he was asked to leave the quarter. This was unreasonable and no amount of arguments can make it a reasonable order.
8. Second query of the Hon'ble High Court relates to quantum of punishment. I have already observed that the punishment is unwarranted because the domestic enquiry was the show of authority only and it was not connected with the service of the appellant.
9. I am unable to maintain the order of the Labour Court and I set it aside and allow the appeal. The appellant be reinstated forthwith with all back benefits.