DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order of learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No,VI at Karachi, dated 30-9-1989, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was allowed and he was ordered to be reinstated in service without back benefits.
2. The brief facts of the case appear to be, that the respondent was employed by the appellants on 6-7-1983. At the time of his appointment, the respondent concealed the fact that he was already employed in the Postal Life Insurance. The appellants came to know of this fact in 1987 and on 4- 10-1987 they gave show-cause notice to the respondent. However, on 12-11-1987, the services of the respondent were terminated by Postal Life Insurance. The appellants also after holding domestic enquiry terminated the services of the respondent on 21-4- 1988. Aggrieved by this termination order the respondent after service of grievance notice filed the grievance petition before the learned Labour Court.
3. I have heard Mr.Gul Muhammad Soomro, learned representative for the appellants and Mr.S.P.Lodhi, learned representative for the respondent and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
4. The fact that respondent was in service of the Postal Life Insurance and that he did not disclose this fact to the appellants while he was appointed in the service of the appellants; is not denied.
Mr.S.P.Lodhi, however, contends that there is no ban on the workman to be engaged in more than one employment at one time. However, he has not been able to show me any specific provision of any law under which such right has been conferred upon a workman. Mr. Lodhi contends that there is no such ban contained on double employment under West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 (hereinafter called the Ordinance) or under the Road Transport Workers Ordinance, 1961. It is not disputed that the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance are applicable to the employ of the appellants and in fact the respondent has also claimed the enforcement of his rights under the said Ordinance. Standing Order 15 e acts or omissions that may be treated as misconduct and it provides, the punishment for such misconduct and the procedure. Under Standing Order 15(1) (ii) (a) disregard or disobedience of rules is a misconduct. Under Standing Order 15(3)(J) frequent repetition of act or omission referred to in clause (1) is a misconduct punishable with punishments under clause (2). These provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance also contemplate the existence of rules that may be framed by the employer and the framing of service rules by employer is not prohibited.
5. It may be pointed that Mr. Gul Muhammad Soomro has produced the Karachi Transport Corporation Rules 1980 which have been framed by the Board of Directors of the appellants. Under Rule 9 of the Karachi Transport Corporation (Employees Conduct) Rules 1980 - "no Corporation employee shall accept without sanction of the corporation any order of employment other than his official duties." It is contended that the respondent continued to be in service of Postal Life Insurance even after the employment with a:, appellants from 1983 right upto 1987 when he was removed from service from Postal Life Insurance which is continuous and repeated disobedience of the above rules which is misconduct punishable under Standing Order 15(3)(j).
6. Mr. S.P. Lodhi contends that the respondent was charge-sheeted under section 5 of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance Act, 1952, and not for misconduct under Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. The Standing Orders Ordinance does not provide for framing of any formal charge-sheet but, the only requirement of Standing Order 15(4) is that the act of misconduct should be brought to the notice of the accused person. Mere mention of the section 5 of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, in the charge-sheet would not invalidate the charge-sheet which clearly mentions the act of misconduct viz., remaining in the service of Postal Life Insurance as clerk in violation of Rules. The fact that the respondent continued to be in service of the Postal Life Insurance even after his appointment by the appellants on 6-7-1983 till 12-11-1987 when his services were terminated by the Postal Life Insurance; is an admitted fact.
7. It may also be pointed that under clause (g) of the appointment order of the respondent, which has been produced as Annexure A-1 by the appellants; his services were liable to be terminated on infringement of the Service Regulations of the appellants. Each day that the respondent continued to be in service of Postal Life Insurance after joining the appellants, would constitute disobedience of the above Rule 9 which will be a misconduct under Standing Order 15(1) (ii) (a) and his continuous remaining in such service for more than 4 years, would constitute a misconduct under Standing Order 15(3) (j). Mr.Lodhi has relied upon a decision of this Tribunal in the case of District Manager K.R.T.C. v. Rasheedullah, reported in 1987 PLC 206. In that case also, the workman Rasheedullah continued to be in service of other establishment even after joining the service of K.T.C. He was dismissed from service by the K.T.C. But the learned Labour Court set aside the dismissal order and reinstated him in service holding that such double employment was not barred under Standing Orders Ordinance. This Tribunal also held that neither the I.R.O. 1969 nor the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 forbids double employment, although morally considered it would be improper. With due respect, I am inclined to differ from earlier decision of this Tribunal.
Standing Orders Ordinance provides certain rights to the workmen, but, it does not forbid the establishment from framing its own Rules of Service. What is forbidden is that such Rules of Service should not take away any right of workman that has been guaranteed under Standing Orders Ordinance. As pointed above Standing Orders Ordinance does not confer upon a workman a right to engage in double employment, therefore, if the Establishment viz., KT.C. Have framed any Rules forbidding double employment, such Rules cannot be said to be repugnant to Standing Orders and, therefore, could be enforced.
8. Mr. S.P.Lodhi has also raised objection that under section 23(4)(vi) of the I.R.O., 1969, the management should not take any decision without the advice, in writing, of the workers' representative in framing the Service Rules or the policy of discipline of workers. Neither this plea was taken in the petition nor C there is any evidence to show that the rules framed by the K.T.C. In 1980 were without the advice of the workers' representative. Normally, the presumption would be that the Rules would be deemed to have been framed in accordance with the provisions of law unless otherwise proved.
9. In view of the above discussion, I set aside the impugned order of the learned Labour Court and restore the order of dismissal of the respondent passed by the appellants. Appeal is disposed of accordingly. accordingly.