DECISION This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the impugned order, dated 10-4-1985, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. 1, Karachi, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant, under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant joined the respondents, namely, Mercury Garments Industries on 17-12-1976 and that at the time of his dismissal from service, he was working as a Collar-man. That, in the year 1979 the appellant was elected as President of the Mehnat-Kash union, but, one of the partners of the respondents, namely, Seth Chaman formed another union under his patronage which was known as Employees Union. That, however, there was a compromise between the two rival unions, which annoyed Seth Chaman. That, thereafter, on 7-4-1983 the appellant was served with a charge-sheet on the basis of a complaint from Supervisor Shafiq Ahmad that the appellant had misbehaved with the Supervisor and was abusing and propagating against the respondent-management which was likely to create indiscipline amongst the workers. The appellant was further charged that he had stitched 64 pieces of Collars on different and unconcerned bodies of the shirts. That, though the appellant had submitted satisfactory reply to the charge-sheet, yet, he received a letter, dated 16-4-1983 that an enquiry would be held against him by one Mr. Abdul Salam. That, in the enquiry, neither the Enquiry Officer followed the prescribed procedure, nor he was allowed any opportunity either to cross-examine the witnesses or to defend his case properly and that the disputed 64 shirts were also not produced before the enquiry as the Enquiry Officer was biased and partial/and that he was victimized also due to his trade union activities. That, however, on 14-5-1983 the appellant was served with a second show-cause notice alongwith the enquiry report and subsequently, on 22-5- 1983, he was dismissed from service, and thereafter, the appellant filed his grievance petition before the Labour Court under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969.
3. The case of the respondent Industries was that the dismissal of the appellant from service was legal and warranted in the circumstances of the case as the charges of misconduct had been duly proved against him after faithful observance of the legal formalities concerning to a domestic enquiry. That the respondents denied the allegation that their partner had patronized any other union and that the Enquiry Officer was neither biased nor partial, therefore, in view of the enquiry report proving the charges, the appellant was rightly dismissed from service and that there was no merit in the grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969.
4. Both the parties filed affidavits-in-evidence before the Labour Court. The appellant has filed his own affidavit as well as the affidavits of his supporting witnesses, namely, Babu Khan, Abdul Rasheed, Saeed Khan, M. Yahya and M. Saleem. While, on behalf of the respondent Industries, the affidavits-in-evidence of Labour Officer Tufail Ahmad, Supervisor Shafiq Ahmad and Enquiry Officer Abdul Salam Khan, were filed. The learned Labour Court had framed the following issues in the case: - (1)Whether the appellant had misbehaved with his supervisor Mr. Shafiq Ahmad on 7-4-1983 and had abused and propagated against the management?
(ii)Whether the applicant stitched wrong Collars on 64 shirts of different unconcerned bodies of the shirts?
(i.e)Whether the domestic enquiry was conducted in accordance with the provision of relevant Law?
(iv)Whether the applicant was victimized on account of his union activities and he was mala fide dismissed from service?
The learned Labour Court deciding these Issues in favour of the respondent Industries had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant, hence, the present appeal.
5. I have heard Mr. M.L. Shahani, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. M.A. Hassan, the learned representative on behalf of the respondents and have also perused the record and proceedings of the case. It was contended by Mr. M.L. Shahani, the learned Advocate for the appellant that the impugned order suffers from judicial reasoning and judicial conclusion, hence, not maintainable in Law and that the learned Labour Court has missed the evidence on record and misconstrued the provisions of law, therefore, came to a perverse and misconceived findings.
Further, it was contended that from the evidence on record, the respondent could not prove the charges against the appellant and whatsoever evidence brought by the respondent Industries before the Enquiry Officer was nothing, but, merely 'hearsay' and that the learned Labour Court has erred in allowing the respondent Industries to produce the shirts, in question, before it at a belated stage which had caused serious prejudice to the appellant as the liability of stitching wrong Collars if any, was basically on the Supervisor who was the Incharge of the department and it was his duty to distribute the bodies and Collars to the Collarman for the purpose of stitching and in case of wrong Collars are supplied by the Supervisor, the Collarman cannot have any knowledge as in fact the shirts were being stitched in various stages and due to the distribution of work, it was the duty of concerned worker to do the job strictly according to the material supplied and that in case there is any mistake in the stitching, it is the practice in the respondent Industries and also in all other Garment Industries that such shirts are returned for rectification, but, in the case of the present appellant, an exception was made. It was further argued by Mr. Shahani that as there were no such shirts with the respondent Industries, therefore, they were not produced before the Enquiry Officer despite the facts they were desired by the appellant to be produced before the Enquiry officer and the production of these shirts, at a belated stage, before the learned Labour Court is an afterthought. It was, however, pleaded that the dismissal of the appellant only on this manufactured charge is mala fide and victimization mainly due to the appellant's trade union activities, hence, the impugned order is based on whims, surmises and conjectures, as this is an admitted position that not a single question was put by the respondent Industries to the appellant in his cross-examination on this point of victimization. On the other hand, Mr. M.A. Hassan, the learned representative for the respondent Industries has failed to point out anything in rebuttal of the pleadings of the appellant and has simply reiterated that the order of dismissal of the appellant was in conformity with the law as the charges against him were fully established against him in the enquiry and that the appellant was given full and fair opportunity of defence. Mr. Hassan has further submitted that the appellant was not victimized on account of his trade union activities, but, has failed to point out anything on record that the appellant was not victimized. Mr. M.A.
Hassan has further failed to prove that the charges against the appellant were proved in the enquiry through the evidence of independent witnesses or that the appellant was afforded full opportunity to defend himself or that the requirement of the principles of Natural Justice were complied with. I, therefore, hold that the appellant was wrongly dismissed on a false charge but this dismissal was mainly due to his trade union activities, therefore, the impugned order cannot be maintained.
6. For the reasons stated by me above, I set aside the impugned order and allow this appeal. The appellant is directed to be re-instated in service with full back benefits forthwith.