DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order of learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No, V at Karachi, dated 9-7-1985, whereby the grievance petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case appear to be that the appellant was admittedly a workman employed by the respondents. On 4-12-1983 he was charge-sheeted for disobeying the lawful orders of his superiors on 29-11-1983. A domestic enquiry was held in which the appellant had participated wherein he was found guilty of the said charge. His services were terminated by order, dated 9-2- 1984. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant served grievance notice upon the respondents but, on failing to get any redress, he filed grievance application before the learned Labour Court which was dismissed. This Tribunal, decided the appeal on 12-3-1987 whereby the impugned order of learned Labour Court was set aside and the appellant was ordered to be reinstated in service with 50% back benefits.
3. The respondents filed a Constitution Petition No, D-399/87 which was decided by their Lordships by order, dated 94-1989. The relevant portion of the order of the learned Division Bench of Sindh High Court may be reproduced, as under;- "However, we find that neither the petitioner had produced any document nor respondent 2 to indicate what were the duties assigned to respondent 2 in terms of above Standing Order 2-A. The explanation given by the respondent 2 is that he being a labourer could not have maintained the record. However' the petitioner being multi national company of standing must be having some record on this aspect. We, therefore, remand the case to , Appellate Tribunal, respondent 1, with the direction to take additional evidence on the above point and then to decide the appeal in accordance with Law."
4. The respondents appear to have been dissatisfied with this Decision of the High Court, therefore, they filed an appeal bearing No, Civil Petition No,84-K of 1989 in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan which was decided by their Lordships by order, dated 19-9-1989. The relevant portion of this decision may also be reproduced, as under:- "We consider that the learned counsel for the petitioner is not appreciating the order of the High Court correctly. The learned Judges of the High Court clearly observed in their order that "neither the petitioner has produced any document nor respondent No,2 to indicate what were the duties assigned to respondent No,2 in terms of the above Standing Order 2-A."Thus what the learned Judges were desirous of ascertaining was the duties assigned to respondent No, 2 and this could be ascertained from the document showing terms and conditions of service contemplated by Standing Order 2-A or any other document. Thus during the remand proceedings the petitioner- company will not be restricted only to producing the document (the order in writing) showing the terms and conditions of service contemplated by Standing Order 2-A but any other document which indicates the duties assigned to respondent No2."
5. On receipt of the aforementioned order from the Hon'ble High Court, this Tribunal, vide order, dated 25-1-1990, set aside the order of the learned Labour Court and remanded the case back to the learned Labour Court for fresh decision. This order of the Tribunal was also challenged by the respondents in the High Court of Sindh in Constitution Petition No, D-45 of 1990, which was decided on 20-12-1990. Their Lordships set aside the orders of this Tribunal, dated 25-1-1990; and directed the matter be remanded back to the Labour Appellate Tribunal again to record the evidence himself and decide the appeal afresh.
6. In pursuance of the order of the Hon'ble High Court, this Tribunal gave an opportunity to the parties to lead further evidence, if they so desired. Only the respondents filed affidavit-in-evidence of one Shahid Ahmad, their Assistant Manager, who also produced certain documents. He was cross-examined by the representative for the appellant. The appellant, however, did not produce any additional evidence.
7. The admitted facts appear to be that the appellant was employed as a worker in the Packing Department of the respondents establishment. On 29-11-1983, the appellant was admittedly working in 'B' shift on automatic machine on Job Day No, 2 on which one Mr. John was the Operator assisted by 3 other workers including the appellant. The appellant claims that his job was only to tape the packing, while the job of two other workers, was to open empty cases and to place the tea packages into cases. Admittedly Mr. John was the Operator of the machine who asked the appellant to open the cases but he refused. He also refused to do same when Mr. Abdul Raoof, Supervisor on duty had asked him to do so; whereupon he was charge-sheeted and was found guilty in the domestic enquiry and, therefore, the impugned order of his dismissal was passed.
8. The fact that the appellant refused to carry out the orders of the Operator and the Supervisor on duty is admitted by the appellant himself before the enquiry officer as well as before the learned Labour Court; therefore, I need not go into the evidence against him with regard to his disobedience of orders. The only question that requires to be considered is whether the orders of the Operator and the Supervisor in asking the appellant to open the Cases were lawful and reasonable?
9. Mr. Shahid Ahmad, who was examined by the respondent in additional evidence before this Tribunal has stated that the copy of the appointment order of the appellant was not traceable in their office, as it appears to have been misplaced during shifting of their office. He has, however, produced copies of appointment orders of a number of other workmen as Annexures R-9 to R-25.
They pertain to the year 1978 to 1980. They are on a similar proforma with only different names; dates of appointments and the Clock Numbers. All of them had been appointed as Hand-packers.
One of the terms of their employment under these employment orders may be re-produced; as under:- "The terms and conditions of your service shall be governed by West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, and the Agreements between the Management and the Lipton's Employees Union dated 29-4 1977 as long as these agreements remain in force, modified from time to time or replaced."
10. Even if there was no such term in the appointment order of the appellant still under law; the workmen and the employer are bound by the Standing Orders Ordinance and the Seplements that may be arrived at between the management and the C.BA. Union. This term and condition of employment would be deemed to be present in every order of employment even if the order of employment does not so explicitly provide. Even if the respondent had not issued an order, in writing, as required, under Standing Order 2-A. At the most, they can be prosecuted for the same; but the terms and conditions of the settlement of the union would still be binding upon all the workmen including the appellant. The respondents had produced before this Tribunal in the additional evidence, the settlement between the CBA Union and the management, dated 3-9-1983 under section 26(2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 as Annexure R-8. Under this Agreement, the Manning Level of automatic packing machine was reduced to 4 instead of 5 consisting of one Operator and three other workmen. It provides that these 4 workers manning an automatic machine would constitute as a Team. It also provides for productivity bonus per day worked by them on achieving the prescribed production target. This agreement was in force at the relevant time when the alleged misconduct had been committed by the appellant.
11. This agreement does not specify separately the work of each of 3 workmen working with the Operator. No other documentary evidence was produced either by the appellant or by the respondents specifying the work of each of the workmen except that as per the Agreement, Annexure R/8; they were to work as a Team. The word 'team' has been defined in the Chambers 20th Century Dictionary - New Edition; inter alia as "a set of persons working or playing in combination." Therefore, when certain persons are working as a team; there would be no water tight compartments with regard to nature of their work, but their work would be interchangeable depending upon the exigency or requirements of work.
12. Word 'reasonable' has been defined in the same Dictionary to mean endowed with reason; rational; acting according to reason; agreeable to reason; just; not excessive, not expensive; moderate reasonable." The word 'lawful' has been defined in the same dictionary to mean; "allowed by Law; rightful". Word `lawful' is defined in the Black's Law Dictionary to mean "legal; warranted or authorised by the law; having the qualifications prescribed by law; not contrary to nor forbidden by the law."
13. It is admitted by the appellant in his cross-examination that amount of the bonus is given on the target achievement by the worker and the operator on collective basis. He has, however, denied that they used to work as a team at the machines. His denial that they worked as a team is contradicted by the terms of the aforem mentioned agreement. I have already pointed that in a team work, there cannot be any water-tight compartments with regard- to work allocated to each worker but their work becomes interchangeable. Mr. Asmat Ali, the Enquiry Officer who was examined by the respondents has stated that a specific stage of work could be ascribed to any worker in the team. This looks reasonable and plausible as the work is done by a team of workers, who get benefits collectively for their collective work.
14. In the case of Government of West Pakistan v. Fatehullah Khan and Ataur Rehman, reported in 1960 PLD SC (Pak.) 105; the respondents had joined the services of N.-W.F.P. In capacity of Assistant Engineers. The Public Works Department of that Province was concerned with work in two branches, namely the Irrigation Branch and the Building and Roads Branch and a joint cadre was maintained for the entire staff of the Department and from time to time officers were detailed to work on the Irrigation side or the Building and Roads side as was found necessary by the Government. On integration of N.-W.F.P. In one Unit, the two Branches; viz., Irrigation and Building & Road side were separated and a question arose as to in which side the respondents could be placed in view of the terms and conditions of their service. Their Lordships had held that "by making the allocation of officers of two branches, which had been constituted in exercise of the plenary power of the Government to order the administrative affairs of the Provinces, the Government were not making any rules as to the conditions of service and did not require to make any rules as to the conditions of service of the officers involved, but 'on the contrary the Government were issuing orders within their powers as they deemed fit and proper in the public interest." Similarly in the instant case also, the order of the Operator and the Supervisor asking the appellant to do work other than taping was of administrative nature and did not violate any term and condition of service of the appellant as, the appellant has not oven been able to prove that as per terms and conditions of his appointment, he was only to do the taping work.
15. In the case of Johnson and Philips Pakistan) Ltd., v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and another, reported in 1986 PLC 5; the respondent was asked to use copper foil (strip) by a Supervisor in a transformer but he refused, to use strip on plea that it was defective and unusable. The learned Division Bench of Sindh High Court held that the respondent had no justification at all to refuse his superior officers and if such liberty is allowed to a workman then any one can refuse to work on pretext that material supplied to him by employer was defective and unusable. The order of dismissal of such a workman by the employer was upheld by the learned Division Bench.
16. Under the circumstances the orders of the Operator and Supervisor in asking the appellant to do the work other than taping; does not look unreasonable or unlawful. The appellant has also admitted that the Operator gets more amount of bonus than the workers, admitting thereby that he was superior of the appellant. The Supervisor undoubtedly is a superior than the appellant. The appellant admittedly refused to obey the orders of both the Machine Operator and the Supervisor and as such he is obviously guilty of the misconduct.
17. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.