DECISION This appeal calls in question the order of the Labour Court No. IV, Karachi, dismissing the petition filed under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969. The facts forming the background of this case succinctly stated, are as follow:-- The petitioner was in the employment of the respondents as a Repairman since 16-3-1983. It appears that he was dismissed from service on 14-7-1986. He had challenged the order before the Labour Court and the petition was allowed. The respondent had preferred an appeal before this Tribunal which was dismissed on 2-2-1983 and he was reinstated, in service.
2. He had remained working as a Repairman and also as a Sprayer when on 19-3-1989 he was served with a charge-sheet with the allegation that since 13th of March he had been inciting the Spray man not to glaze the big pieces unless their pay was increased by 100 rupees per month. As a consequence the respondents had sustained heavy losses, which had also caused disruption in the smooth working of the Department.
3. The petitioner had replied to the same denying all these allegations. It was not found to be satisfactory, and a letter of enquiry was given. The Enquiry Officer appointed was Muhammad Saleem Qureshi but as complaints were made against him he was replaced by Mehboob Alam, an outsider.
4. Shakeel Ahmad, Assistant Manager,. Glauze Application Department, Raqibul Hassan, Supervisor, and Hafiz Ziauddin from the Kiln Section were examined. The petitioner examined Muhammad Saleem, Muhammad Hand, Saeedur Rehman, Ambreen Khan, Muhammad Alzal, Zakaullah and Ali Azam in defence. He wanted to" produce one further witness namely Muhammad Ashraf but he was not made available in spite of adjournments. But 2 other persons by the names of A.K. Bhatti the Personnel Manager, and Shamim Ahmed were allegedly examined by the 1.0. As defence witnesses. The Enquiry Officer had found the petitioner guilty of misconduct and as a result thereof he came to be dismissed by the respondent on 23-11-1989.
5. The petitioner had sent a grievance notice on 30-12-1989 for which he had received a reply. As no satisfaction could be received by him he had filed the petition before the Labour Court. His contention was that he had been run down because the respondents had been nursing grudge against him from the time he had been reinstated in service by the Labour Court earlier.
6. The contentions came to be denied m the Written Statement filed by the respondents. It was also alleged therein that the Court did not have territorial jurisdiction in the matter.
7. The petitioner examined himself while the respondent examined Shamim Ahmed, Azizullah Bhatti the Factory Manager and Mehboob Alam, the Enquiry Officer.
8. The Labour Court repelled the contention in regard to the lack of territorial jurisdiction but found that misconduct had been established against the petitioner. It, therefore, dismissed the petition resulting in this appeal.
9. The circumstances culminating in the drawing of the proceedings against the appellant have been furnished by Shakeel Ahmed, Assistant Manager, Glaze Application Section, and Raqibul Hassan a Supervisor. The version as furnished by Hafiz Ziauddin of the Kiin Department is only derivative in nature.
10. Shakeel Ahmed started by saying that on the 13th of March at about 3-00 p.m. The appellant had incited his colleagues but the details are anybody's guess. In the next breath he stated that accompanied by his colleagues, he had appeared before him to his room and announced that they had called an urgent meeting and resolved that they would not be glazing big pieces from the 14th of March, unless there was an increase of Rs. 100 per month in their pay. Raqibul Hassan stopped short by saying that these persons had waited on Shakeel Ahmed and told him that they would not be working on the big pieces in the absence of increase in the pay.
11. Admittedly there was no slogan-mongering, no stamping of the feet, no menacing voices raised, of any sort no pandemonium, no personal threat extended or implied to anybody. There is also no mention even of a minute's wastage of time either. Shakeel Ahmed had not reported for duty on the 14th, but when he had turned up the next day he was told that as informed the spray-- men had not touched big pieces.
12. The case of the respondent is that though reporting punctually and working, the Spray men, because they had been worked up by the appellant were not attending to the big pieces, and had started attending to it only on the 19th when some functionary form the Labour Department had turned up on a report from the respondent. Nobody has been examined from the Labour Directorate- and there are no details forthcoming in that context. There is also nothing to indicate as to what was the actual loss caused, by not attending to the big pieces. No attempt has been made to apprise of the detail. Be as it may, the appellant and the other Spray men are alleged to have continued the defiance from the 14th of March up to the 19th when the Labour Directorate intervened.
13. Now let us have a look at the daily job card report pertaining to these days. It is nobody's case that the appellant was absent or had not worked on any of these dates. The names of the other Spray men find mention among the workers for the day from the 14th tall the 16th. But the name of the appellant is not there 17th probably was a holiday. On the 18th the name of the appellant had been added and, but it is in hand. Again on the 19th his name finds a place but in had. No explanation has been furnished for the same.
14. It is also an admitted position that he was upgraded as a Spray man only on the 4th March, 1989 and it is said that he had refused to accept the letter because according to him there was no increase in the pay packet. According to Azizullah Bhatti he had been promoted on the 15th March.
15. It also appears that on the 14th there was no casting work done because of electric failure. This is the report of the Casting Department as to be found on page 297 of the record. It is also an admitted position that the target of 115 pieces inclusive of big pieces was not always reached and anybody who succeeded in doing so. On the showing of Azizullah Bhatti the Personnel Manager, used to receive Rs.200 by way of extra payment. It is also an admitted position that after the show- cause notice had been issued to the appellant, the respondents had agreed to a raise of Rs.33 per month in the pay of the Spray men. The agreement has been spoken of to be on the 26th of March.
Some have it on the 18th of April. Clearly all that had happened was a feeble attempt on the part of the Spray men to have little raise in their pay and it cannot be said that anything had happened which was subversive of law and order. Certainly there was no wilful insubordination or disobedience as it is nobody's case that they had been told by any one to glaze big pieces and they had refused. Nor could it be said that there was any strike or go-slow in work, or any incitement, Actually all the other Spray men had appeared as defence witnesses at the Enquiry saying with one voice that there was no incitement of any sort on the part of the appellant.
16. It appears that the respondents were not too happy with the appellant. He had been removed once earlier, and had been reinstated in service. He was singled out again when matters could have been amicably resolved, as it was later on done.
17. Even, the domestic enquiry cannot be said to have been conducted in a very fair manner. It is true that he was provided a co-worker and he was replaced by another when so wanted by the appellant, but on the showing of the Enquiry Officer himself the appellant was not permitted to refresh his memory by looking to the notes which he had brought for the purposes of cross- examination. It was an indefensible action as it is resorted to even by seasoned lawyers in a Court of law. Though the appellant could still manage a long and grueling `cross-examination of the witnesses, yet it was thanks to his grit and determination only.
18. It was also alleged that the Enquiry Officer was leaving wide spaces in between the lines so that the same could be utilised later on to tilt the scales against the appellant. The Enquiry Officer Mehboob Alam admits that such a charge had actually been made against him during the proceedings. He was a man employed from outside and appears to have some reputation as a proformer. He had displayed the skill when 2 of the officers namely Azizullah Bhatti and Shakeel Ahmed whom the appellant wanted to vouch for him were sent for by the I.O. Only to prove two documents signed by them, and behind the back of the appellant.
18-A. I am of the opinion that the charge against the appellant was far from established. It began and ended with a whimper. I will, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
19. The appellant has stated that he had been jobless. He will, therefore be entitled to full back benefits from the day he was removed till the date of his reinstatement in service, which will be within 15 days.