DECISION This is an appeal filed by the appellants, Messrs Asian Food Industries Ltd., Karachi, against an impugned order, dated 30-10-1984, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. II, Karachi, who had allowed the petition of the respondent by directing his re-instatement to the post which he was holding immediately before his revision with payment of differences in his salary.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent was a permanent workman of the appellants establishment since last six years and he was also an office-bearer of the Labour Union, which was the C.B.A. In the appellants factory. On 8-12-1983, the respondent was issued a charge- sheet, but, though he had satisfactorily replied to the allegations, yet a domestic enquiry was held in which he had participated and in that enquiry, nothing could be proved against the respondent.
It was further claimed by the respondent that neither the enquiry was proper, fair and in accordance with the prescribed procedure nor he was supplied with the copy of the proceedings of the enquiry and the second show-cause notice and that he was illegally and arbitrarily reverted from the post of Operator to the post of Helper and his wages were also reduced from Rs.1,020 to Rs. 480 per month. Therefore, on 12-3-1984 he served a grievance notice upon the appellants Establishment which was rejected by them on 20-3-1984, hence, he submitted his petition.
3. The case of the appellants Establishment was that the respondent was their permanent workman and he was also an office-bearer of the C.B.A. Union but it was denied by them that they had ever intended to victimize him and that on 8-12-1983, he was issued a charge-sheet for having committed acts of misconduct within the meaning of Standing Orders Ordinance as he had instigated the workers not to perform their work resulting in that the workers came out from the working area by which no production was done from 8-00 a.m. To 8-30 a.m.; besides this, the respondent also used abusive language against his Supervisor. Further, the case of the appellants establishment was that the enquiry was quite proper, just and in accordance with the prescribed procedure in which he fully participated and did not raise any type of objection at any stage. That the reversion order, dated 7-2-1984 was quite lawful and in accordance with the principles of Natural Justice, therefore, his grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969, was not maintainable, thus, liable to be dismissed.
4. Both the parties filed affidavits-in-evidence and they were duly cross-examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court had allowed the petition of the respondent, hence, this appeal.
5. I have heard Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani, the learned representative for the appellants Establishment and Mr. Shafi Muhammadi, the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent and have also carefully perused record and proceedings of the case. As regards the allegation of victimization of the respondent due to his trade union activities, admittedly, there is nothing on record to prove this allegation against the appellants establishment. 1, therefore, that the learned Labour Court has rightly repelled the same.
6. As regards merits of the case, it was contended by Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani, the learned representative for the appellants Establishment that there were three charges against the respondent which were fully established not only through the evidence of three witnesses, namely, Alim Malik, Mukhtar Ahmad and Ch. Yousuf deposing that there was an illegal strike and cessation of work on 8-12-1983 from 8-00 a.m. To 8-30 a.m.; only on the instigation of the respondent workman. This charge was further supported by a letter, given to the appellants establishment by the General Secretary of the C.B.A. Union, of which the respondent had claimed himself to be the Propaganda Secretary, in which the General Secretary had clearly admitted that the respondent, Muhammad Aslam was responsible for instigating the workers to resort to illegal strike. Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani has pointed out that there is nothing on record to show that any question was suggested by the respondent workman to the witness, namely, Ijaz Hussain Shah, the Supervisor, that the respondent did not use abusive language against the witness, therefore, this charge was also proved as unrebutted. Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani has further argued that though all the above three charges were proved against the respondent in the lawfully, properly and fairly held domestic enquiry, in which the respondent had not only physically participated, but was also afforded full opportunity to defend himself, and he was liable to be dismissed from the service; yet, the appellants Establishment had taken a lenient view by only reverting him to the post of a Helper and this action of the management was quite lawful, discretionary and harmony, therefore, the management had done nothing wrong against the respondent. In view of the submissions, evidence on record, legal and factual position, I would hold that the order of the appellants Establishment reverting the respondent from the post of Operator to a Helper and reducing his wages from Rs.1,020 to Rs.480 per month was quite lawful, correct and justified, hence the respondent workman had no case to maintain his grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969 which is liable -to dismissal. Mr. Shafi Muhammadi, the learned Advocate for the respondent workman has failed to submit any reasonable and cogent arguments in support of his case, as he has only reiterated the findings of the learned Labour Court in the impugned order, which, in my opinion cannot be sustained.
7. For the reasons stated by me above, I would set aside the impugned order and allow this appeal.
The appellants Establishment is to revert to the respondent, Muhammad Aslam from the post, directed of Operator to the post of a Helper and reduce his wages from Rs.1,020 to Rs.480 per month, forthwith. The amount of difference of pay, deposited by the appellants Establishment before this Tribunal, be returned to the appellants Establishment.
M.Y.H./899/Lb.