DECISION ' This appeal from the order of Labour Court No, V at Karachi arises in the following circumstances:-
2. The appellant was working as an Electrician at the Hashoo Steel Industries Ltd., situate at Port Bin Qasim, Karachi. On the 5th of May, 1990 in the early morning hours of 'B' Shift, the Kent Table No, 2 Motor had started tripping. It is alleged that when the appellant was contacted by Muhammad Rafiq, Desk Operator and Zaheer Abbas Fitter, to attend to the fault he had misbehaved with Zaheer Abbas and declined to rectify the fault. It is said that as a result of this neglect to the call of duty the Motor remained out of commission from 3-45 a.m. To 4-10 a.m. And the Company suffered loss in production. He was, therefore, served with a charge-sheet on the 24th May, 1990 to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for the alleged misconduct.
3. The appellant had furnished his reply and his contention was that while he was going to attend to the repairs, abuses had been hurled on him by Zaheer Abbas, because the latter considered him to be on inimical terms with him. Not satisfied with the explanation, the Factory Manager had ordered an enquiry which was to be conducted by Syed Rafiq Ahmed, Executive, Personnel and Administration.
4. Rafecq Ahmed, Zaheer Abbas, Khursheed Ahmed and Abdul Shakoor were the persons examined at the Enquiry apart from the appellant himself. According to the Enquiry Officer the charge stood substantiated and he recommended disciplinary action. Dismissal order followed with effect from 10-9-1990.
5. The appellant sent a grievance notice. Later on the grievance petition followed. In the Labour Court the appellant was his own witness while Tahzibul Hassan, the Factory Manager and Syed Rafiq Ahmed, Executive, Personnel and Administration were examined on behalf of the management. The Labour Court found that it had been satisfactorily established that appellant had abused Zaheer Abbas and his misconduct stood proved. The petition was therefore dismissed, resulting in this appeal.
6. On the showing of Tahzibul Hassan, the working of the machine had remained normal.
Production had not stopped. There was, however, a shortage of 2-1/2 tons in the production. Issues were joined about the loss of production. The. Electrical Register was not produced, though the undertaking was that it would be produced on the next date. It cannot therefore be affirmatively said, that there was a loss in production.
7. There is more to it. The appellant had approached the N.I.R.C. And got a stay order. It appears that the appellant was not in the good books of the respondent. The cross-examination of Tahzibul Hassan shows that another Electrician by the name of Abdul Shakoor had once not attended to his duty for full four and a half hours and remained sleeping. He also had been charge-sheeted and no dismissal had followed, though charge-sheet had been given. Demonstrably the dismissal of the appellant was the offshoot of the tussle between the two factions of the Union. Let us therefore look in that direction.
8. Looking to the conditions prevalent around us, there could be no love lost between the appellant and Zaheer Abbas. The appellant had been the Secretary of the Union which was also the C.B.A.
Upto February, 1990, when Zaheer Abbas had been elected in his place. It is also admitted by Tahzibul Hassan that the appellant was the President of Hashoo Steel Contractor's Labour Union. It has been brought on the record that it was for Khursheed Ahmed to look into the disturbance in the Motor but Zaheer Abbas had taken over. It is true that Khursheed Ahmed and Rafiq Ahmed have stated that it was the appellant who was the aggressor and had hurled abuses on Zaheer Abbas; so had Zaheer. But all of them remained tight-lipped about the actual words of abuse, at the domestic enquiry and also before the Labour Court. What is relevant is never scandalous and it would have been better if they had come out with the words actually used.
9. Zaheer Abbas and the appellant, not being well disposed to each other would not be using festival terms in address to each other. They were ordinary workers and their language otherwise too, could not be very urbane. Any way it is not necessary to dilate on this aspect of the matter because Abdul Shakoor in his evidence at the enquiry which has been placed on the record has stated that it was Zaheer Abbas who had chosen to abuse the appellant and he is totally silent about the latter's response.
10. So it could not be said with certitude that it was the appellant who had started the trouble. The Enquiry Officer should have also given his careful attention, to the not too cordial relations between Zaheer Abbas and the appellant. It is also to be seen that in the explanation submitted by the appellant immediately on the receipt of the charge-sheet, he had put the entire blame on the shoulders of Zaheer Abbas. Tahzibul Hassan had admitted in categorical terms that the counter- allegation made by the appellant, had not been investigated at all, when the enquiry order was passed.
11. There is no mantle of infallibility about the domestic enquiry and the report that follows. If there was no ring of truth from the circumstances established on the record and if matters were not examined analytically and properly leading to what was found by the Enquiry Officer, the findings reached by him have to be struck down, otherwise the provision of section 25-A challenging the orders would be nothing but a farce.
12. Giving due consideration to the circumstances and the testimony led in the matter, it could not be said definitely that there was any misconduct on the part of the appellant or that he was instrumental in any fall of production, if at all. I would, therefore, set aside the order of the Labour Court and allow the appeal. The appellant will be reinstated with full back benefits.