DECISION I wish to dispose of these two cross-appeals by the instant single decisions. The impugned order, dated 15-4-1985. Is challenged by both the appeals.
2. Sakhi Khan was employed by the Shabbir Tiles and Ceramics Ltd., Karachi, as on attendant worker in the Raw Material Department of the factory since 6-4-1980. On 28-4-1980, the worker was on duty in 'B' shift. He was relieved of his duties at 11-00 p.m. He met Ghulam Rehman's whose employment was terminated and was sitting at the gate at that time. Ghulam Rehman's was brought by him in the Security Office of the factory. The Inspector Mushtaq Qureshi tried to make Sakhi Khan to understand the actual position of Ghulam Rehman's case. It is alleged that Sakhi Khan misbehaved, became furious and used abusive language against the management and thus created unruly situation within the factory premises. He incited other workers to stop the work till Ghulam Rehman's is re-instated. He also misbehaved with T. A. Zaidi, Shift Manager. A charge- sheet was served on Sakhi K on 2-5-1984 and an enquiry was held by Muhammad Umar, the Enquiry Officer and in pursuance of the enquiry, the worker was dismissed. He filed a grievance petition. The learned Labour Court re-instated the worker on the ground that he was not given a second Personal hearing which is violative of the Rules and, therefore, the Labour Court ordered that Sakhi Khan may be re-instated and directed that personal hearing may be afforded to him and then, whatever tie management feels fit such an order may be passed.
3. The management filed an appeal, against the order of second personal hearing and had relied on Supreme Court authority as reported in Dawood Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Guftar Shah PLD 1981 SC 225.
The authority held that second show-cause notice after completion of the enquiry, was not a requirement of rule of natural justice. This amounts sufficient as regards the appeal of the management. Second show-cause notice is not necessary.
4. I would, therefore, advert to the allegations made against the worker in the domestic enquiry which ended into the dismissal of the worker, Sakhi Khan.
5. I have heard in detail the arguments of Mr Ali Amjad for the worker and Mr. Abdul Qadir for the Management.
6. Mr. All Amjad referred to the evidence of Sakhi Khan in the domestic enquiry. Sakhi Khan completed his duty on 28-4-1984 at 11-00 p.m. As he came out of his department, he saw Ghulam Rehman's standing within the premises of the factory. Ghulam Rehman's told Sakhi Khan that he is not being given duty by the Shift Manager. He contacted the Shift Manager on the complaint of Ghulam Rehman's The Shift Manager told him that Ghulam Rehman's was a temporary worker and his services were terminated. Mir Muhammad and Rauf, workers of the factory, were both present at that time. Thereafter, Sakhi Khan went away. He was cross-examined in the domestic enquiry but no question with regard to his abuses or with regard to inciting other workers not to work till Ghulam Rehman's is re-instated was asked by the management. The domestic enquiry is, therefore, clear that Ghulam Rehman's was already within the premises of the factory and in the cross-examination no case is made out with regard to inciting the workers or that the abusive language was used by Sakhi Khan. Sakhi Khan has made allegations against the management with regard to payment of some money to him to depose against a worker to which Sakhi Khan did not agree with the management, and, therefore, the management seems to have grudge with Sakhi Khan. The management has not cross-examined Sakhi Khan in the domestic enquiry on this point also.
7. Mr. Ali Amjad had read out the entire evidence of the witnesses and the affidavits filed of those witnesses who were for the management and those witnesses who were for the worker. Mr. Ali Amjad has argued that the management has gone out of the limits of establishing a case against Sakhi Khan and the evidence is not satisfactory. I have gone through the evidence and believe that this enquiry has made 'mountain of a mole' and the evidence is unnecessarily exagerated and smacks of falsehood. A small incident is exploited into a full-fledged enquiry and examining witnesses who have not deposed correctly or the evidence of these witnesses have no value whatsoever. Talking loudly is the nature of workers and ignorant people but talking loudly cannot be violative of any rule and conceived as abuses. But, taking loudly is also not made out from the evidence. At 11-00 p.m.; no unlawful assembly over collected and there were only few persons who got relieved from the duty. There is an argument that the management has refused for the re- instatement of Ghulam Rehman's and thus much appears to be true. No subversive or riotous or unruly assembly collected and no misbehavior is spelt out from the said circumstances.
8. I have read with great attention the impugned order. It is a confused order. It has not appreciated the incident that had occurred at 11-00 p.m. And has himself fallen into so many errors.
9. After hearing the arguments of the parties, I have concluded that much is made out of nothing and a simple vindication of the grievance is made a full-fledged enquiry and a particular employee is dismissed. I disagree with the impugned order in his deductions. Second personal hearing is not necessary according to the Supreme Court authority. To this extent, I set aside the impugned order of the Labour Court but maintain the order that the worker Sakhi Khan be re-instated forthwith. I also feel that the back benefits are not necessary in this case.
10. The two appeals are accordingly disposed of.