MUHAMMAD ZAFARULLAH, J.--This judgment will dispose of the following writ petitions as common questions of law and facts are involved:-- (1)Writ Petition No. 3704 of 1984.
(2)Writ Petition No. 3705 of 1984.
(3)Writ Petition No. 3706 of 1984.
(4)Writ Petition No. 3707 of 1984 and (5)Writ Petition No. 413 of 1985.
2. Muhammad Iqbal, Maqbul Ahmad, Abdul Ghafur and Riaz Shahid, four employees of Millat Tractors Ltd. Were involved in an incident with one Saeed Tariq, another employee of the factory in which Saeed Tariq was given a beating outside the factory gate on 2-3-1982. The Inquiry Officer found all four to have been involved in the occurrence. On considering the report the employers terminated the services of Muhammad Iqbal, Maqbul Ahmad, Abdul Ghafur and Riaz Shahid on 13- 6-1982. They challenged the orders of their termination in Labour Court but their petitions were dismissed by a single order of 12-6-1983. In appeal the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal vide his order, dated 15-8-1984 has directed the re-instatement of the four persons but has withheld the back benefits. The learned Tribunal was of the view that the incident took place outside the factory premises and not during the working hours, therefore, it did not amount to misconduct as provided for in Standing Order 15(3) (h). The employer has challenged the orders in four different writ petitions to the extent they relate to the re-instatement of the employees.
Similarly, the employees have challenged the orders to the extent they relate to the back benefits.
3. Clause (h) of Standing Order 15(3) reads as follows:-- "(h) riotous or disorderly behaviour during working hours at the establishment or any act subversive of discipline."
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner this definition has two parts and the latter part dealing with acts subversive of discipline have nothing to do with the first part as acts subversive of discipline whether they take place during working hours or not will be covered by the definition of misconduct. The judgment of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal refers only to the first part of the definition, which relates only to the riotous or disorderly behaviour during working hours and the second part of the definition does not appear to have been brought to the notice of the learned Tribunal. The learned Labour Appellate Tribunal may, therefore, also have to examine whether the conduct of the four persons was covered by the latter part of the definition and whether the latter part of the definition is to be read independently of the first part or the two parts are to be read together.
4. The learned Labour Appellate Tribunal is of the view that the incident in which Saeed Tariq was injured was a retaliatory act on the part of the other employees, but the question of the motive for this retaliation remains unanswered. The Inquiry Officer dealt with twos versions of the motive, one advanced by Saeed Tariq complainant and the other by the accused-employees. He, however, gave no definite conclusion regarding either of them. The Labour Court No. 3 Ferozwala, on the other hand, believed the version of Saeed Tariq. The learned Tribunal refers to a retaliation without referring to the motive for retaliation. The motive is significant because if the beating given to Saeed Tariq was related to an incident in the factory, which could be a matter of discipline and the latter part of definition of misconduct is to be read independently of the first part, the persons responsible for the incident of 2-3-1982 will be guilty of misconduct. Since, these questions have not been determined by the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, we consider it proper to remit the case back to it for this purpose. Since the question of back benefits is closely related to the misconduct or otherwise, the learned Appellate Tribunal may determine this question also afresh. With these observations the five writ petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs; A.