DECISION This is an appeal against the impugned order, dated 24-5-1985, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. III at Karachi.
2. Mushtaq Ahmad the appellant was a worker (Fitter/Welder) in the factory of the respondents. An incident occurred on 15-9-1983 at about 10-20 a.m. Of which a joint complaint was made by the appellant as well as another worker Habib Ahmad against Mr. Fazal Naeem, the Works Manager.
One Fazal Naeem, Works Manager asked the appellant to work in the Core Shop but the appellant refused to obey the orders and held out threats and manhandled Fazal Naeem, therefore, a charge-- sheet was given to the appellant and he was directed to explain the misconduct within 48 hours. The appellant has submitted his reply Annexure 'C' to the application in which he explained that Fazal Naeem had addressed them in a degrading and disgraceful manner which was sufficient to offend him. His explanation was rejected and an enquiry was ordered. Mr. Shamim Javaid the Personnel Officer was appointed as Enquiry Officer who conducted a regular enquiry as a result of which, the appellant was dismissed from service on 6-11-1983, Annexure 'E'. Appellant submitted a grievance notice and subsequently filed a grievance petition.
3. Respondents challenged the maintainability of the application on the ground that no right guaranteed or secured under any law, settlement or award was infringed because a fair and independent enquiry was conducted wherein the appellant was given full opportunity to cross- examine witnesses and to lead defence. It was alleged that the true facts were that there was no work in the Fabrication section, hence four workers of the said section, viz. Mushtaq, Habib, Rafique and Ahmad were sitting idle. Fazal Naeem, Works Manager, asked them to go and work at the Core Shop whereupon three workers went to the Core Shop whereas the appellant Mushtaq objected and enquired as to where he had to go for work. He was told that he was to go to the Core Shop.
The appellant objected that he was a Fitter-welder and would perform the work according to his designation. He was told the nature of work as 'roling slitted stips at the Core Shop'. The appellant refused to perform the said work and held out threats to Fazal Naeem and manhandled him. The appellant was duly served with a charge-sheet and enquiry letter. As enquiry was conducted by Mr. Shamim Javaid in a fair and independent manner in which the appellant as well as his co- worker Iqbal were given full opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. He was subsequently dismissed from service due to his conduct found guilty.
4. I have heard Mr. Abdul Majeed for the appellant and Mr. Khalid Javed, Advocate for the respondent. The contention that the enquiry was improperly conducted, is not correct. It was clear that a fair anti proper enquiry was held in which some witnesses were cross-examined IA at length as well as his co-worker. The appellant examined his defence witnesses in the enquiry and the Enquiry Officer was careful enough to call for the counter-complaint made by the appellant and after a careful consideration and assessment of evidence, the Enquiry Officer, Mr. Javaid Shamim submitted his report Annexure 'A' to his affidavit. The report of the Enquiry Officer was not perverse.
It was very well-discussed and all aspects of the case were considered. There seems no wrong about the domestic enquiry.
5. So far the facts of the case are concerned, the incident was admitted. The version of the management was that the appellant Mushtaq Ahmad refused to obey the orders of Fazal Naeem and on the contrary held out threats to him and manhandled. In the light of the above version of the management, Annexure 'A' to the application. The facts as narrated in the complaint of the appellant were that Mr. Fazal Naeem did come to the department of the appellant and asked the workers to accompany him. The complainant further disclosed that the appellant questioned Mr. Fazal Naeem as to where they had to go, whereupon they were told that they had to go to the Core Shop. The appellant further questioned him as to the nature of the work, which was disclosed by Mr. Fazal Naeem that the work was to roll slitted strips, and on this reply the appellant said that as he was a Fitter/Welder, work of that nature be given to him. The facts as narrated above in the counter-complaint of the appellant very well-indicated that the appellant was reluctant to obey the order of the Works Manager and had, in a way, refused to perform the job of rolling the slitted strips on the ground that it was not the function of a Fitter-Welder.
6. It appears that the appellant disobeyed the order and, therefore, he comes within the purview of misconduct under Standing Order 15(3)(a) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. The order written by the learned Labour Court is correct order and I would maintain it.
7. The appeal is accordingly dismissed and the order of the learned Labour Court is maintained.