DECISION ' These two appeals are directed against an order of learned Vth Sind Labour Court at Karachi, dated 30-5-1988, whereby the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court dismissed the grievance petition filed by the 2 appellants against their removal from service by the respondents. I propose to dispose of both the appeals by this single decision.
2. The facts of the cases, in brief, are that both the appellants were employees of the respondents at the relevant time. They allege to be office-bearers of the trade union of the workers of the respondents, therefore, earned the displeasure of the management. They were charge-sheeted on 26-10-1985, for having misbehaved with an Executive of the respondents and after domestic enquiry, they were dismissed by order, dated 12-11-1985. After serving grievance notices upon the respondents, both the appellants filed separate grievance petitions before the learned Labour Court challenging the legality and the bona fide of the impugned orders which were dismissed by the learned Labour Court. The respondents resisted both the grievance petition on the ground that the appellants were guilty of the misconduct which was proved in the domestic enquiry and that they have been removed from service in accordance with law.
3. I have heard Mr.S.P.Lodhi, learned representative for both the appellants and Mr.Farooq A.Ghani, the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondents.
4. The main contention of Mr.S.P.Lodhi, the learned representative of both the appellants is that the charge-sheets served upon the appellants were vague and did not disclose the details of the misconduct. In reply to the charge-sheets, appellants represented that the charge-sheets were vague, therefore, they were not able to give proper replies. The respondents thereafter admittedly sent them the complaint filed by Mr.Shuja Mahmood, Chief Accountant and Executive of the respondents. The allegations against the appellants were that on 26-10-1985 at about 10.45 a.m., when Mr.Shuja Mahmood was giving rounds of the Coffee shop area, he observed the present appellants having their breakfast in a Guest area.
' He told them that they should not sit in the Coffee Shop area during the business hours whereupon the appellants allegedly attacked him and manhandled him. He was rescued by Mr.Salim Raza and others.
5. It may be pointed that the appellants were charge-sheeted on 26-10-1985 to which they replied on 27-10-1985,whereafter copy of the complaint was sent to them by the respondents by their letter, dated 29-10-1985. The enquiry was held afterwards. It is contended by Mr.Farooq A.Ghani, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents that the appellants had full knowledge of the charge against them. He further contended that under the law, even the charge-sheet was not necessary as the requirement of Standing Order 15(4) is that the workman should be informed of the alleged misconduct, in writing, within one` month of the alleged misconduct. It is submitted that the appellants were so informed ,by the respondents by sending copy of the complaint along with their letter, dated 29-10-1985 by which they were given further opportunity to submit any further explanation, if they so desired. Reliance is placed on 1980 PLC 369, wherein this Tribunal has held that "it was not essential that the charge-sheet should be couched in any specific or precise language and the service of the charge-sheet was not a requirement of law, but, the accused only to be informed in writing of alleged misconduct with such information as enable accused to fully understand nature of allegation. Lack of particulars in charge-sheet itself does not invalidate domestic enquiry." Similar view was held in 1980 PLC 701 and 1980 PLC 1213. In view of the above circumstances and earlier decision of this Tribunal, sufficient compliance of the requirement of Standing Order 15(4) have been made in the instant case' and domestic enquiry is not invalidated on this ground. '
6. It is further submitted by Mr.S.P.Lodhi, the learned representative for the appellants that the Enquiry Officer was biased. It is not disRuted that the appellants did participate in the enquiry and the witnesses were also examined. It is contended by Mr.Farooq A.Ghani, the learned Counsel for the respondents that the appellants did not raise any objection against the Enquiry Officer during B the course of the enquiry, therefore, they are precluded from raising objection in appeal. It is further submitted that the enquiry officer has not been examined. Mr.Farooq A.Ghani, has contended that the enquiry officer had, in the meantime, left the services of the respondents and his whereabouts were not known to them C and such facts have come in the affidavit-in-evidence of Mr.Shuja Mahmood, in para 11 of his affidavit which has not been challenged in his cross-examination. It is further submitted that the enquiry proceedings have been produced before the learned Labour Court and further that no evidence has been led by the appellants to prove any bias or misconduct on the part of the Enquiry Officer.
7. In 1983 PLC 37, it was held that "where accused himself admitted enquiry proceedings and all pages whereof, signed by accused and that other witnesses supported allegation against accused, the non-examination of Enquiry Officer by Labour Court, in circumstances was not objectionable." In the instant case also complainant, Shuja Mahmood has been examined who has deposed" about the alleged misconduct by the appellants. He also produced enquiry report and the enquiry proceedings. The enquiry proceedings show that besides the complainant, Shuja Mahmood, 2, other witnesses, Syed Salim Raza and Manzoor Ahmed were Examined. It niay be pointed that the name of the said Salim Raza is also mentioned in the complaint filed by Shuja Mahmood before the management. On the basis of evidence of these 3 witnesses and the evidence produced by the acs cu persons, the enquiry officer held the appellants to be guilty of the above-mentioned misconduct. As pointed above, the appellants did not dispute their participation in the enquiry.
8. Mr.Shuja Mahmood, in his affidavit-in-evidence has alleged in para 3 that the appellants caught hold of his shoulder in order to beat him and in the meantime Abdul Mahmood, the appellant attacked him from the back and hit him on his face and shoulder and that Mr.Saleem Raza came in between and rescued him. The Enquiry Officer after holding the enquiry held that charge was proved. It is contended by the appellants that the enquiry officer aftpr recording their attendance, had postponed the enquiry and the evidence was not recorded in their presence. It is admitted by the appellants that they had not made this allegation in their grievance notices. In the cross- examination; both the appellants had admitted that they did participate in the enquiry. Appellant, Muhammad Asif has also admitted in his cross-examination that he did not make any complaint to the authority to the effect that the statements of the witnesses were not recorded in his presence: Under the circumstances this allegation that the statements were not recorded in the presence of the appellants is neither proved nor it does appeal to reason. It is further contended by the appellants that they were victimized because they .Vere office-bearers of the trade union.
9. In 1960 PLC 439, a learned Sigel Judge of Calcutta High Court has considered the meaning of victimization:- "Victimization means one of two things: The first is where the workman concerned is innocent and yet he is being punished because he has in some way displeased the employer. The second case is where an employee has committed an offence but he is given a punishment quite out of proportion to the gravity of the offence simply because he has incurred the displeasure of the employer. But, where it is found that the workman is guilty of gross misconduct then there cannot be any question of victimization because it merits dismissal by itself. The workmen in this case having been found guilty of gross misconduct which by itself merits dismissal, there is no scope for applying the principle of victimization."
' In the same case, it was further held that "where the conduct of the clerks was subversive of all discipline and where such conduct has been proved it can only be characterized a gross misconduct and the only possible punishment would be dismissal. The fact that the clerks concerned had a clean record would only make it all the more regrettable when there was no regret expressed on their behalf and attempts are made to justify their conduct. It is impossible to accept the employer to keep in his employment persons who are capable of taking the law into their own hands, and are guilty of. Boisterous and violent acts of indiscipline which exceed the limits of decency and good conduct".
10. In 1988 PLC 699, this Tribunal has held that "misconduct established in proper and lawful enquiry, plea that impugned action was a measure of victimizations due to union activities stood repelled.
11. In the case of Akhtar Alam v. S.L.A.T. And others, reported in 1985 PLC 570, a Division Bench of Sind High Court, Karachi, upheld the concurrent findings of the Labour Court and the Labour Tribunal and has held that "Inflamatory speech by workman at lunch hout was subversive of discipline falling within purview of clause (h)".
12. In 1974 PLC Note 18 at p.10, this Tribunal had held that when an office-hearer charged with misconduct has been given a hearing and is allowed to produce his own witnesses, to cross- examine the witnesses produced against him, an Industrial Court would not interfere with the action of the employer in dismissing a workman.
13. The allegation against the appellants was that they had during working hours misbehaved with the Executive of the respondents by attacking him and manhandling him. Such an allegation, if proved, is a misconduct as defined in Standing Order .i5(3)(h). The officer with whom the appellants are alleged to have misbehaved, was examined before the enquiry officer as well as before the learned Labour Court and the appellants had full opportunity to cross-examine him. His evidence has not been shaken in the cross-examination nor any reason has been shown for him to falsely implicate the appellants. The appellants in their own examination-in-chief before the Labour Court have alleged victimization only because they were office-hearers of the union. There is no evidence to show if any of the other office-bearers of the union was victimized. I have already pointed that the appellants did participate in the enquiry and did cross-examine the complainant.
It is also admitted that presently the appellants are gainfully employed elsewhere in other hotels.
14. For all these facts and reasons, I am of the view that the learned Labour Court has rightly dismissed the grievance petitions of the appellants and sec no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Both these appeals are accordingly dismissed.