DECISION AH Nawaz Bndhanl. J.-On 10-7-1985, the Labour Court No. IV, Karachi, granted the grievance petition of one Idris reinstating him in the service of the appellants. This is an appeal and not the sat J order, filed by the appellant establishment, namely, Trust Ceramie Industries, Karachi.
2. The facts are that Idris took an application of a worker, namely, ope Luqman for grant of leave in the month of July, 1984. The leate was not granted as the application was late by one month. It is alleged that Idris got furious over the non granting of the application and thunipeiL the,table twice and abased the Labour Officer.
After abuses, he lefLthe venue and went away. This was made the point of prestige and a regular enquiry was eondected. Idris was found guilty and accordingly he was dismissed from service. Idris was employed in the establishment of the appellants since 1978. He got his varions promotions till he became a skilled worker.
3. The appellants filed their written reply and insisted that Idris was guilty of misconduct for abusing the Labour Officer, and therefore, he was rightly dismissed.
4. I have heard the learned counsel of the both the parties and have read the enquiry conducted by the Enquiy Officer in detail. The question was simple and an . Application, though belated was given on behalf of the applicant, Luqman for the grant of leave in the month of July, 1984. The Labour Officer was not willing to grant the application and this infuriated the respondent, Idris. Respondent Idris states that he sever abused the Labour Officer or any body. However, he had heated arguments which ggve cause to the enquiry officer. I have read the enquiry papers. The nature of abuse was not given by the enquiry officer in his initial stage but subsequently, he gave the nature of abusing that the law of establishment for granting applications must go in Donkey's hole. This was denied by the respondent, but the enquiry officer and his witaessess supported.
5. Considering the nature of allegations, Idris, so entered into heated arguments with the Labour Officer and he denied to have abused the Labour Officer or the officers before whom the said application was tendered. This was a minor thing and it should not have been made a mountain of it. Certainly, he is not entitled for dismissal after having served' the establishment since 1978; The abuse, as alleged by the prosecution withessess and denied by the respondent, are simply an addition to an enquiry.
6. The respondent was one of the members of three Unions. Respondent states that he was not liked by the management due to this. At any rate, the enquiry conducted by the manage mot does not call for the dismissal of the worker. I agree with the impugned order of the learned Labour Court and dismiss this appeal. The appellants are directed to reinstate the respondent in service forthwith without back benefits.