DECISION This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 10-1-1984, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. II, 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 was a permanent workman in the respondent establishment for the last 16 years and was an active member of Messrs Dilon Limited Mazdoor Union, whereas Messrs Dilon Limited Labour Union was the Collective Bargaining Agent in the respondent establishment. It was alleged by the appellant that in order to destroy the Mazdoor Union, the respondent establishment had announced the closure of Nylon Section and pressed about 25 workers of the said union including the office-bearers to resign from their jobs after accepting the dues in full and final settlement. That the appellant played a leading part in resisting the designs of the respondent establishment and was harassed, not only by the respondent establishment but, also by the office-bearers of the C.B.A. Union. That the appellant had brought certain illegal activities of the respondent establishment to the notice of the Governor and the Joint Director Labour (East) Malir, Karachi, which further aggravated the situation. That on 18-6-1982, he received an anti-date charge-sheet, dated 16-6-1982, and that one Muhammad Aslam was appointed an enquiry officer by incompetent authority and that this charge-sheet was by way of victimization for the appellant's complaint to the Joint Director Labour (East Division), Karachi against the unfair labour practice by the respondent establishment. That the domestic enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the principles of Natural Justice as it was neither fair, impartial and legal; nor according to the prescribed procedure, and that on the basis of such enquiry, he was illegally dismissed from service under the orders, passed by the incompetent authority. That, thereafter, the appellant submitted a grievance petition before the Labour Court.
3. The respondent establishment resisted the petition and denied that the appellant was the office- secretary of Dilon Ltd. Mazdoor Union or that he was the Joint Secretary of the said union when he was issued charge-sheet for the misconduct. That they denied that the appellant was ever threatened or pressed to resign either from Mazdoor Union or from the employment. It was also denied by the respondent establishment that in order to destroy the Mazdoor Union, they had closed the Nylon Section and forced the workers to resign. The respondent further denied that the charge-sheet was anti-dated, but the fact was that it was prepared on 16-6-1982, but, when the appellant refused to accept the delivery, then, it was sent to him under registered Post, A/D on 16- 6-1982, and thereafter, on 18-6-1982, it was personally served upon the appellant. The respondent establishment further denied that Mr. Nizamuddin Khan was not competent to issue the charge- sheet and appoint the enquiry officer, but, the fact was that he was the Factory Manager, notified under the Factories Act. It was further denied by the respondent establishment that the domestic enquiry was not independent, but, the facts were that the appellant, his co-worker and witnesses had signed the enquiry proceedings after their statements were recorded by the enquiry officer.
They submitted that the appellant was dismissed from service quite in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 15 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 and that the dismissal order did not suffer from any illegality or defect.
4. Both the parties filed their affidavits-in-evidence and they were duly cross-examined. The learned Labour Court, thereafter, had dismissed the grievance petition, hence, this appeal.
5. I have heard Mr. Mirza Muhammad Kazim, Advocate, for the appellant and Mr. SherMalik, the learned representative on behalf other respondent establishment and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case. Mr. Mirza Muhammad Kazim, the learned Advocate for the appellant has contended that the appellant was dismissed from service only by way of victimization on account of his trade union activities and also for bringing certain acts of the respondent establishment to the notice of the higher authorities and that as the appellant alongwith the office-bearers of the Dilon Ltd. Mazdoor Union was fighting for the cause of the workers and was also bringing to the notice of the concerned authorities, the improper behaviour of the respondent establishment, therefore, it annoyed the respondents establishment. I see no force in these contentions of Mr. Mirza Muhammad Kazim, the learned Advocate for the appellant.
There was an admitted position that there was a C.B.A. Union in the respondent establishment, namely, Messrs Dilon Ltd. Labour Union and that the appellant was not even on ordinary member of it. It is confessed by the appellant that on 9-6-1982 he was ellected as Joint Secretary by the General Body of Dilon Ltd. Mazdoor Union and such intimation, was sent to the Director Labour on 14-6-1982, but, no intimation was sent to the respondent management. This specific admission on the part of the appellant and itself falsified his version that he was victimized on account of his trade union activities. The respondent establishment was correct in saying that it had no knowledge of the appellant being an office-bearer of the rival union at the relevant time. It is very pertinent to note here that in his cross-examination, the appellant had further admitted that he was the only person belonging to the Dilon Ltd. Mazdoor Union whose services were terminated.
This admission again falsified the contention of the appellant that it was the intention of the respondent establishment to destroy the Dilon Ltd. Mazdoor Union. It was further an admitted fact that Dilon Ltd. Mazdoor Union was not the C. B. A. And it did not appeal to reason as to what danger and threats the respondent establishment would have apprehended from the office-bearers or the members of a union which was not the C.B.A. There is nothing on record to prove the mala fide of the respondent establishment in this respect. If the respondent establishment were to adopt pressure tactics, then, the proper person would have been Asmat Shah, the General Secretary of Dilon Ltd. Mazdoor Union, and not the appellant. There is an admission by the appellant that the charge-sheet, dated 16-6-1982 was also sent to his residential address which was received by him on 21-6-1982. By this admission, the appellant had himself contradicted his version that the charge-sheet was anti-dated as 16-6-1982. As regards to the allegations that the enquiry proceedings were not properly conducted and the appellant was not afforded full and fair opportunity to defend himself, it is crystal clear from the perusal of the enquiry proceedings that all papers were signed by the appellant as well as by one Asmat Shah, who assisted him during the enquiry proceedings. The enquiry proceedings are in Urdu and both the appellant and his co- worker, who assisted him in the enquiry proceedings were well-versed with the Urdu language.
Therefore, it is incorrect to contend that the enquiry officer had distorted and twisted the version of the witnesses and had recorded the same in such a manner so as to be prejudicial to the appellant. From the evidence and cross-examination of one, Mr. Nizamuddin Khan, and the documents brought by him on record, it is very much established position that he was lawfully and properly notified 'Manager' under the Factories Act, and was competent to issue the charge-sheet, to appoint an enquiry officer, to order for enquiry proceedings and also to issue a dismissal order, therefore he was a competent authority, also in the case of the present appellant. Under these facts and circumstances, I hold that there are no reasons to interfere with the impugned order, passed by the learned Labour Court.
6. For the above reasons, I would maintain the impugned order and dismiss this appeal.
M. Y. H./893/Lb.