' This appeal is directed against the order of Sind Labour Court No,II at Karachi, who dismissed the grievance application under section 25-A, 1.R.O., 1969, vide order dated 18-10-1983.
2. Briefly the facts are that Shabbir Hussain was a permanent employee of the respondents for the last 8 years and was General Secretary of the Meek Truck Employees Union. He was once again a candidate for the office of the General Secretary in the elections which were scheduled on 30-1- 1983. The respondents did not approve of his being elected. Unfortunately on 12-1-1983, at about 10- 30 a.m., an incident took place which was under the circumstances quite sudden. One Rasool Bux, Foreman of another section came to the section of the appellant and without permission picked up the Pressure Gun which was not given by the appellant and he took the Pressure Gun from Rasool Bux. This small matter was reported to Shakil Ahmad, the Deputy Manager (Production) who came on the spot and shouted at the appellant saying that the Pressure Gun was not the property of the appellant's father. This generated heat and the Pressure Gun was snatched from the hands of the appellant who resisted it. This unfortunate incident resulted in giving of show-cause notice on 12-1- 1983, namely the same day to which the appellant gave a convincing reply. Appellant also complained to the General Manager who took no notice of it. An enquiry was fixed the very next day. The Deputy Manager (A & P) in hot haste and without issuing a second show-cause notice issued the orders of dismissal of the appellant on 25-1-1983.
3. The respondents' stand appears to be that he was not dismissed because he participated in trade union activities but he was dismissed for acts of misconduct. The fact of his contesting the elections came to the notice of the respondents on 26-1-1983. However, on 18-1-1983, the appellant by his letter addressed to Mr. Shakil Ahmad admitted his guilt and requested for pardon. As regards the counter complaint lodged by the appellant, it was submitted by the respondents that the same was fictitious.
4. The learned Labour Court framed two issues, namely, whether the dismissal of the appellant by respondents was proper and valid and whether the appellant is entitled to the relief claimed for or any other relief. These issues were found against the appellant.
5. 1 have heard in this respect the learned counsel, Mr. S.P. Lodhi for the appellant and Mr.Syed Qamarul Hassan for the respondents. Mr. S.P.Lodhi's arguments are that the facts enunciated with regard to the incident, dated 12-1-1983 are not the facts which would entail the dismissal of the appellant. Even if it was considered to be an act of misconduct than a lenient punishment should have been given. He pointed out that this incident was very unfortunate as the ensuing elections of the union were scheduled to be held on 30-1-1983, whereas the unfortunate appellant fell victim to an incident which was not pre-planned and pre-conceived. The allegations by the appellant in his grievance application was that the management did not like the appellant to take part in the elections.
6. I have perused the order of the Labour Court and it has come to the conclusion that the incident took place and that vide statement of the appellant before the Enquiry Officer was that he pleaded guilty. I may point out that the statement of the appellant in the domestic enquiry is dated 18-1- 1983. The translation thereof is as under:- "Sir, It is requested that he has replied the show-cause notice. The allegation which has been levelled against him did not mean that the appellant wanted to raise the production. Actually he wanted to work and show better production. However, if there was any mistake committed by him he may be pardoned."
7. This all what the appellant had said. He could not deny the incident took place. His intention was to save the Pressure Gun to be used to increase the production. An untoward incident that of hot words and of pulling the Pressure Gun from the hand of either Shakil Ahmad or Ghulam Rasool was not with an intention to insult any one and cannot be interpreted as an act of misconduct. His request for pardon is again good intention and his zeal to work and to show production.
8. Overall the circumstances of this case show and indicate that for a small mishap a major punishment is given to the appellant and that he has served for 8 years in the respondents. The salient feature of the facts on record is the date on which the elections were to be conducted and the date on which he was ordered to be dismissed. He was ordered to be dismissed only 5 days before the elections. Mr. S.P. Lodhi's arguments are quite sound and if at all there is a punishment to be awarded to the appellant, it should be milder punishment prescribed under Order 15(2).
Subsection of clause (2) there is punishment prescribed of withholding the increment for a period of one year. Feel that it is sufficient punishment for a misconduct under these( circumstances.
9. I hereby allow the appeal with awarding a punishment of withholding an increment of one year.
10. However, I am referred to an authority of the Supreme Court cited in 1980 PLC 981. In this case the Labour Court substituted the punishment which was not prescribed by Standing Order 15(2).
But the observations of the Supreme Court is that the Labour Court could not substitute punishment which is not prescribed under Order 15(2). Order 15, subsection (2) prescribes the punishment, as stopping of increment for one year. This authority is not applicable to this case at all.
11. The result is that appeal is allowed, as ordered above, and the appellant be re-instated with all the back benefits.