DECISION This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned dated 24-10-1983, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. III, Karachi, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25-A, I. R. O., 1969.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellant was a permanent worker, though designated as Supervisor, in the respondent establishment, namely Messrs Metro Garments Industries, Karachi. On 27-2-1983, she was served with a charge-sheet alleging therein that she had quarelled in the Ladies Stiching Department and assaulted one Mrs. Sabita with a Chappal and abused her in filthy language. She was called upon to explain the circumstances within 48 hours. 'That, instead of submitting an explanation, the appellant sent an application to the respondent establishment requiring an information as to on what grounds the charge-sheet was issued and that she should be supplied with a copy of the complaint and a list of prosecution witnesses. She was informed by the respondent establishment that it was not the requirement of Law that a copy of the complaint or list of witnesses be supplied to her. Then, the appellant submitted her explanation that on the date of the alleged incident, Mrs. Sabita and the Manager Incharge, Mrs. Shahida had compelled her to resign her job because they feared that the appellant, due to her better performance of work, might supersede them and consequently made a false complaint against her. As her explanation was not found satisfactorily, therefore, an enquiry was ordered and the appellant was asked also to appoint her lady co-worker for the domestic enquiry. That on her request, another enquiry officer was appointed but her request to nominate one Mashoodul Hassan to assist her as a co-worker, was rejected by the respondent establishment on the ground that neither Mashoodul Hassan was a worker in the respondent establishment, nor he can be permitted to enter into Ladies Section of the respondent establishment. That, the respondent establishment, instead of proceeding ahead with the enquiry, had dropped the charge-sheet, on the allegation that the appellant was wilfully hampering the enquiry proceedings and simultaneously was called upon to show cause as to why her services should not be terminated as she was not a worker within the meaning of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 or the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, and thereafter her services were terminated, vide letter, dated 9-3-1983. Hence, the appellant challenged the termination of her services before the learned Labour Court
3. The respondent resisted the petition on the ground that as the appellant was not a workman within the meaning of the I.R.O., 1969 or the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, as she was a Supervisor getting monthly salary of Rs. 650, therefore, she had not secured or guaranteed right under the Law, thus, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction. That, even otherwise, the respondent establishment had decided to resort to a regular domestic enquiry against her with a bonafide intention to give full opportunity to defend herself, but, as her attitude was not cooperative and it was an aggressive, therefore, the charge-sheet was dropped and a summary procedure of termination of her services was adopted.
4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits-in-evidence and they were duly cross-examined.
Thereafter, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order, hence, this appeal, Mr. M.L. Shahani, the learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was a workman under the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 and also the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The appellant had mentioned her duties in pare. 4 of her affidavit-in-evidence, but the respondent establishment had failed to produce any letter of appointment or a chart of her duties to controvert her claim. He argued that whether a person is a workman, the determination factor is the nature of duties performed by the worker, the status does not depend upon designation or salary. Admittedly the charge-sheet was issued under Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. Further there is an admission by the witness of the respondent establishment, namely Mst. Mehmooda Mushtaq that one Miss Shahida was the Head of the Section and the appellant Yasmin was working under Miss Shahida. In cross-examination, she further admitted that the duties of the appellant were to check the work of other body makers. She used to check shirts prepared by the workers. There is nothing on record on behalf of the respondent establishment to prove that the appellant had the power of 'hire and fire' or she was an employer within the meaning of Standing Orders of the I.R.O. , 1969. It is further an admitted position that lady body-makers were getting Rs.1000 to Rs.1,500 per month and the appellant was getting only Rs.650 per month, as a checker. Reliance is placed on a case reported in L L C 1961 at 765, wherein it was held that supervisors conneced with the scrutiny of manufactured goods and production of workers, are 'workmen'. Further, it was an admitted position that at the time of termination of the services of the appellant, an Industrial Dispute was pending. In view of the unrebutted nature of duties of the appellant. I would hold her as a workman within the ambit of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 and the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and as such she was entitled to maintain a grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969.
5. It is next argued by Mr. M.L. Shahani, the learned Advocate for the appellant that it is an admitted position that a charge-sheet, dated 27-2-1983 was issued to the appellant and an enquiry officer was appointed, but, neither the enquiry was conducted nor the charge-sheet was withdrawn. Mr Shahani has referred to an admission of the witness, namely, Abdul Karim on behalf of the respondent establishment, during his cross-examination before the learned Labour Court that "It is correct that the applicant's services were terminated on the ground of misconduct," and further that "there was no question of enquiry report as no enquiry was held." It was pleaded that the termination for misconduct without enquiry is illegal and contrary to the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. Mr. Shahani has contended that instead of conducting the enquiry into the alleged charge of misconduct or withdrawing the charge-sheet, in question, the appellant was issued a letter of termination of services on 9-3-1983. This action of the respondent establishment clearly established mala fides against the appellant as the management was inclined to remove the appellant, in any manner, from their employment. If it is assumed as a termination simplicitor, then, too it is not permissible in Law unless specific reasons are shown in the termination order. In the present case, no specific reasons are mentioned in the termination order of the appellant. The appellant was first issued a charge-sheet for an alleged misconduct and without holding an enquiry or without withdrawing the same, she was issued a termination order even, without assigning specific reasons. This action on the part of the respondent establishment is nothing, but, mala fide and illegal, more particularly, in view of the admission of the witness of the respondent establishment, namely, Abdul Karim in his cross-examination, that "it is correct that the applicant's services were terminated on the ground of misconduct." I, therefore set aside the same and hold that the appellant is entitled to be reinstated in service with full back benefits.
6. For the reasons discussed by me above, I would set aside the impugned order, dated 24-10-1983, and allow this appeal. The appellant C is directed to be reinstated in service forthwith with full back benefits.
M.Y.H./895/Lab.