DECISION This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 26-12-1985, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. V, Karachi, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969.
2. Brief of the case are that the appellant was employed in the respondent establishment in the capacity of photographer and that on 1-4-1984, two separate charge-sheets were issued to him, alleging by one charge-sheet he was warned for his substandard photographs habitual negligence and carelessness, while, by another charge-sheet. He was called upon to explain his wilful disobedience. The first charge-sheet was abandoned. As regards the second charge sheet, the appellant claimed to have submitted a satisfactory stating therein, that justice harass him it was issued and that at no time, he was assigned any duty to cover the alleged football function held on 22-3-1984, therefore, the question of disobedience did not arise. However, his reply was found unsatisfactory, therefore, a biased domestic enquiry was conducted resulting in his dismissal from service, particularly he was victimized due to his active trade union activities and differences with his incharge, i.e. Photographer-in-Chief, namely, Hassan Bozai. Being aggrieved, the appellant submitted his grievance petition under section 25-A , I . R . O . , 1969.
3. The respondent establishment resisted the petition and had refuted the allegation of the victimization of the appellant for any ulterior reasons and submitted that he wilfully disobeyed to carry out the lawful and reasonable orders of his superiors, which charge was fully established against him in a fairly and impartially held domestic enquiry in which the appellant was afforded full opportunity to defend himself, therefore, he was rightly dismissed from service and so, his petition could not be maintained and liable to be dismissed.
4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavit-in-evidence and they were duly cross-examined.
Thereafter, the learned Labour Court had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant, hence, his appeal.
5. I have heard Mr. Khalilur Rehman's, the learned representative for the appellant and Mr. Muhammad Humayoon, the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondents and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. Mr. Khalilur Rehman's for the appellant had contended that the appellant was not only an active member of 'Huriyyat Employees Union' but he was also a member of the National Executive Council of Pakistan Newspapers Employees Confederation (APNEC) as well as member of the Federal Executive Council of the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists, therefore, the management of the respondent establishment was annoyed with him and was inclined to get rid of him, thus. He was being continuously harassed and victimised on different occasions for different reasons. Mr. Khalilur Rehman's had pointed out that despite of his several requests/ protests, he was not supplied with the better lenses and the apparatus for his profession, as a photographer in the respondent establishment while all the other colleague photographers were full armed with the latest equipments. So, his efficiency and performance was adversely affected. He further submitted that one, Hassan Bozai. The photographer-in-chief who was the incharge of the appellant was the main tool of the respondent establishment against him. He submitted that on 9-3-1983, the appellant had taken a photograph of tour-de-- Pakistan Cycle Race and it was published in Daily 'Huriyyat' but, this same Photograph was also published in 'Khaleej Times' Middle East under the caption photo by Hassan Bozai. In this respect, Mr. Khalilur Rehman's has referred me to the following admission of Hassan Bozai in his cross-examination before the learned Labour Court "The same photo was published in Khaleej Times under his name.
This photograph was taken by the applicant. It is incorrect.
That when the applicant protested on the publication of this passed by the Sind Labour Court No V, Karachi, who had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent, Mazhar Jalil Siddiqui, filed by him under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent, namely, Mazhar Jalil Siddiqui was employed with the appellant Corporation as Assistant. On 12-8-1984, he was issued a charge-sheet on the allegation that on 14-7-1984, when it was a closed holiday he had courted some lady visitor to the filing room of the office and had manhandled her with the result that she had ran away while crying for help and that she was rescued by the timely response of Chowkidar Muhammad Yousuf and staff members of the adjoining office. That the respondent had denied this charge if he had courted any lady visitor or if he had teased or manhandled any lady on that day and that he was being victimised and harassed as he had refused to obey some illegal and unlawful orders of the Chief Manager. As the reply to the charge---sheet of the respondent was found unsatisfactory, therefore, he was put under suspension and a domestic enquiry was conducted against him by one, F.R. Khan, General Manager, Budget & Accounts Department, who found him guilty of the misconduct and consequently, he was dismissed from service, vide order, dated 8-11-1984.
3. The appellant Corporation resisted the petition on the ground that the respondent was rightly found guilty by the enquiry officer at the conclusion of the enquiry proceedings in which he was given full opportunity to defend himself. They further submitted that the respondent had invited lady visitor and had manhandled her inside the filing room which incident was witnessed by Chowkidar, Muhammad Yousuf and other persons and that it was incorrect to say that the dismissal of the respondent from service was malacious, capricious or coloured for any reason.
The appellant corporation had also taken exception to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court
4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits-in-evidence and were duly cross-examined.
Thereafter, the learned Labour Court had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent directing his reinstatement in service with full back benefits, hence, the present appeal.
5. I have heard Mr. Samiullah Khan, the learned representative for the appellant Corporation and Mr. Chandio Munir Ahmad, the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent workman. It was contended by Mr. Samiullah Khan, the learned representative for the appellant Corporation that the Corporation had employed a number of workmen whose terms and conditions of service were regulated and governed by the contents of several Wages Commissions Awards which replaced the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 and in this circumstances, the provisions of Standing Order 1(4)(c) were not applicable to the appellant corporation. I see no force in this contention of Mr. Samiullah Khan. In this behalf, I am fortified with the authorities, reported in A 1984 PLC at page 276 and 1980 PLC at page 1118, wherein, while examining the question about exclusion of the Standing Orders Ordinance vis-a-vis the Statutory Rules of the National Bank (a Statutory body like the Investment Corporation of Pakistan) run under the authority of the Federal Government, it was held that such disciplinary rules framed by Wage Commission for Banks and Financial Institutions, cannot be treated as Statutory Rules and such establishments would not be out of ambit of West Pakistan Industrial & Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. In view of this legal position, I would hold that the Labour Court was competent to entertain the grievance petition of the respondent.
6. It was contended by Mr. Samiullah Khan, the learned representative for the appellant Corporation that, while considering the merits of the case, the learned Labour Court had apparently used its conjectures and some sense of sympathy rather than correct and proper evaluation of the facts and evidence on record. I also do not find any substance in this contention of Mr. Samiullah Khan. The learned Labour Court , while dealing with the facts of the case, had very elaborately and convincingly discussed the facts, circumstances and evidence on record. There is no corroborative evidence against the respondent except the bare words of Chowkidar, Muhammad Yousuf, who was not at all examined by the appellant Corporation before the learned Labour Court and put to cross-examination by the respondent, therefore, an evidence before the learned Labour Court on behalf of the appellant Corporation was merely an hearsay and cannot be relied upon. Even, in the domestic enquiry, the evidence of the sole witness, namely, Muhammad Yousuf before the enquiry officer was highly doubtful, as he had himself admitted before the enquiry officer that once, he had himself taken his were to the Tariq Road Branch during night time. The other witness of the appellant Corporation, namely, Abdul Majeed, before the learned Labour Court has admitted in his cross-examination that some adverse notes were made against the Chowkidar, Muhammad Yousuf about his irregularities and this admission on the part of the witness of the appellant Corporation clearly proves that the sole prosecution witness of the appellant Corporation, namely, Muhammad Yousuf was not a person of dependable character. Further, there is a great defect and lacuna in the prosecution proceedings that the lady visitor/girl, in question, was neither called as a witness, either before the enquiry officer, or before the learned Labour Court and put to cross-examination by the respondent; nor, a F.I.R. Was lodged against the respondent before the concerned Police by the appellant Corporation. Further, though it was claimed in the charge that some staff members of the adjoining office had responded to the cries of the lady visitor and had rescued her, yet, none of them had been brought into the witness-box to support the story of the appellant Corporation. In view of this factual position, I would hold that the respondent did not commit any misconduct, so, the charge-sheet was false and all the subsequent proceedings against the respondent could not be sustained. Hence, his dismissal from service, in view of the above legal and factual position is liable to be set aside. Therefore, the learned Labour Court was quite correct in allowing the grievance petition of the respondent workman, namely, Mazhar Jalil Siddiqui.
7. For the above reasons, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. However, I would not allow the back benefits to the respondent, but, would direct the appellant Corporation to reinstate him in service forthwith. The appeal, with this modification, is accordingly dismissed.