DECISION On 10-7-1985, the Labour Court No.IV, Karachi, granted the grievance petition of one Idris re- instating him in the service of the appellants. This is an appeal against the said order, filed by the appellant Establishment, namely, Trust Ceramic Industries, Karachi.
2. The facts are that Idris took an application of a worker namely, one Luqman for grant of leave in the month of July, 1984. The leave 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 thumped the table twice and abused the Labour Officer. After abuses, he left the venue and went away. This was made the point of prestige and a regular enquiry was conducted. 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 various 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 Enquiry 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 never abused the Labour. Officer or any body. However, he had heated arguments which gave 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 witnesses 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 abuses, as alleged by the prosecution witnesses 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 management does not 3 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 re-instate the respondent in service forthwith without back benefits.