' This appeal is directed against the order of IIIrd Sind Labour Court at Karachi which was passed on 11-5-1983. By this order he has dismissed the grievance application of the appellant.
2. The facts enunciated in the grievance application filed by one Nasrullah Khan are that he was an employee of the respondents and worked as a Winder in the Transformer Winding Section of the respondents. On 24-6-1982 at 8-00 a.m. His Supervisor Mr. Tareef Illahi gave him a copper tapping strip for use in the coil. The appellant refused to do so as the strip was rusted and not in plated and further said that the same could not be used for soldering. He entered into- an argument with the Supervisor and both of them went to the office of one Mr.Fazal Naeem, the Transformer Works Manager, where Mr. Cowasjee the Manager of the Manufacturing Division was already present. Mr. Fazal Naeem was informed of the situation whereupon he himself examined the copper strip and ordered the appellant to use the strip as directed by the Supervisor. Once again the appellant declined to comply with the order saying that he would not do it, and this job could be done by somebody else. Mr. Fazal Naeem asked Mr. Tareef Elahi to do the job of soldering himself. Mr. Tareef Ilahi carried the work of soldering with the help of another worker. He taunted the appellant that "you could also do it." The appellant angrily replied "what can you do to me; expel me from service?
I will teach you such a lesson that you will remember." The contention of the appellant was that the orders given to him were not lawful and reasonable and he depended on certain notifications issued by the management to the effect that special attentions be paid in manufacture of transformers so as to maintain the quality or else the Transformers Section would be closed. The explanation of the appellant was rejected and an enquiry was ordered which was conducted by the Enquiry Officer, Mr. Sabah. Mr. Sabah found him guilty and ultimately dismissed him by an order, dated 15-12-1982. The appellant has further alleged that he was victimized due to the trade union activities because he was Joint Secretary of the Union and was contesting the elections which were to be held two days after the dismissal of the appellant. His plea was that in fact there was no refusal to obey the, orders but he insisted to provide him with a better quality strips in the interest of reputation of the company and in view of the notifications issued in this regard.
3. The stand taken by the respondents was that they denied the appellant to have been victimized due to his trade union activities. It was denied that the order was not lawful and unreasonable. It was further contended by the management that nothing in writing was given by the appellant to say that the material supplied to him was of a bad quality. In fact the same strip of copper was soldered by another worker. The enquiry was fair.
4. The learned Labour Court, however, found that the worker i,e, the appellant had disobeyed the orders which amounted to misconduct.
5. I have heard the learned counsel Mr. All Amjad on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Kamal Mansur Alam, Advocate, for the respondents. The arguments of Mr. All Amjad are, firstly; that the appellant actually had not disobeyed the orders but had insisted for giving him a better quality strip so that a proper work could be done; secondly, his arguments were that the respondents did not give lawful and reasonable orders; thirdly, the fact that the ensuing elections were scheduled only two days after his dismissal could be interpreted against the respondents. In advancing his arguments, Mr. Ali Amjad referred me to the translation of the statement of one Tareef Illahi, which is as under:-- "I, Tareef Illahi, performing my responsibilities as a Supervisor in Transformer Department in the Winding Department. On the morning of 26-6-1982, at about 8-00 a.m. Mr. Nasrullah, Check No,242, who was working on 1000 KV, asked for a Strip for the purpose of tapping. I gave him the strip and asked him to solder it. He said that the strip was defective and it could not be soldered. I told him that it will be soldered and you should make a try. He did not agree with me and went to the office room of Mr.Fazal Naeem. Mr. Kawasjee was also sitting there. He repeated the same thing there that it cannot be soldered. Mr. Fazal Naeem told me that I should see if it can be done. I soldered the strip. It was not done well but was soldered. Mr. Naeem was also present during this time.
Subsequently at about 8-50 a.m. He asked leave from me. I granted him leave. Afterwards I put Check No,291 on the said job and he completed the strip. I do not have to say anything further."
6. The statement of Mr. Tareef contained the following words that the soldering was not done well but was soldered. It indicated that bad material and bad quality strip was supplied to the appellant. Lt is clear from the above statement of Tareef Illahi. Mr. Ali Amjad further proceeded to argue that from the statement of Tareef Illahi it can be gathered that a defective material or strip was given and that the appellant demanded a better strip and declined to accept the strip given to him for soldering. Actually he did not disobey or refuse to obey the order but demanded a better quality strip.
7. The next piece of arguments of the learned counsel is based on the assertion that the orders were not lawful and reasonable. In this respect the counsel has relied upon the decision in the Constitutional Petition No,D-834/79, by Mr. Justice Ajmal Mian and Mr. Justice Hyder Ali Pirzada. The facts in the above Writ Petition were that a driver of the Cotton Export Corporation was asked by the some members of the administration to forego the lunch hours and to attend some urgent work. The Driver refused to do it and he was subsequently dismissed. In the writ petition, it was found that the order passed by the management in that case was both unlawful and unreasonable. It is necessary to give the quotations of the paragraph of the judgment in the above writ petition. As under:- "It may be noticed that an act or omission on the part of a workman shall be a misconduct if it is wilful in subordination or disobedience, whether alone or in combination with others, to any lawful and reasonable order of a superior. It may be highlighted that violation of disobedience of every order of a Supervisor does not constitute misconduct in terms of the above-quoted provision of law, but the order should be lawful and reasonable. The question, whether an order is reasonable or not would depend on the facts of each case. In the instant case the petitioner has not brought on record, what was the nature of the urgent work, which respondent No,3, declined to attend during the lunch hours. Whether the urgent work was such, which could not have been postponed till 2-00 p.m. i,e, about 45 minutes, the personal manager's order in the instant case cannot be said to be reasonable."
8. In the present case there is hardly a disobedience to have been proved. The appellant declined to accept the rusted copper wire for doing the job. Even if the orders were lawful then too they were not reasonable, considering the overall quality that the worker has to maintain in his work. What happened if the management supplied with better quality copper strip and avoid the entire situation. The orders issued by the management were strictly not lawful and all the same were unreasonable.
9. The third point may be noted in favour of the appellant. The elections of the Union were due to be held only two days after the order of this dismissal. This situation cannot be read in favour of the management.
10. For all these reasons the impugned order of the Labour Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The appellant is directed to be re-instated forthwith with all back benefits.