DECISION These 2 appeals call in question the order of the Labour Court No. IV, Karachi whereby the petitions under section.25-A, IRO for reinstatement in service came to be dismissed. As there is a running threat between the two disputes, apart from the unity of time and place, I will dispose of them by a common decision. The circumstances in which these arose are as follows: The genesis of the story is that on the 31st of December 1990 two of the foremen working in Ampule Department came to be transferred to the Vial Section. This created a lot of furore among the workers of the respondent --factory. There were meetings and slogan mangerings. On the following day i.e. On the 1st of January there was a `Gherao' in the evening and even the female workers and the officers were not allowed to leave the factory premises. It is stated that looking to the deteriorating situation, the Factory Manager contacted the Joint Director of Labour on telephone and he arrived round about 6-30 p.m. It was on his intervention that normalcy was restored and the female workers returned to their homes.
2. It was on the 6th of January,- 1991 that both the petitioners were served with charge-sheets in almost identical terms which reads as follows: "It has been reported against you that on 1-1-1991 you were in General Shift duties and after completing your duties in the department at about 4-30 P.M., you did not leave the factory and punched your attendance card at 4-51 P.M. And remained with the factory premises till 7-00 P.M.
During your illegal overstay in the factory premises on 1-1-1991 at about 4-30 P.M. You along with Mr. Muhammad Mehmood, President of Cornpak Employees' Union, Mr. Mirza Salim Beg, Sr. Fitter, Vial Finishing Maintenance and also Vice-President of the Cornpak Employees' Union, Mr. Ashraf Hussain, Assistant Supervisor, Manufacturing Services and also General Secretary of Cornpak Employees' Union and others locked the outdoor gate of the factory and prevented the female employees to leave the factory. As a result thereof the female employees had to sit ' in the lawn up to 7-00 P.M. The buses arriving for transporting back the female workers were forced to go back.
At about 5-00 P.M. On 1-1-1991, when the officers finished their work and wanted to go home, they were prevented from doing so by you as the gates were locked. The officers which included female officers also were not allowed to leave the factory. The Joint Director, Labour, East Division, Malir, Mr. Jahangir Azhar visited the factory on 1-1-1991 at about 6-00 P.M. And on his persuasion the gate was opened at about 6-15 P.M., thereafter the officers and the female staff were allowed to leave the factory at about 6-15 P.M. And 7-00 P.M. Respectively. That before leaving the factory premises you indulged in slogan raising and demonstration aimed at coercing and pressurising the management for the purpose of acceptance of your illegal demands of withdrawal of transfer orders for 3 (three) workers Ampoule Finishing Section.
Your aforementioned behaviour tantamount to riotous and disorderly behaviour during working hours at the establishment and are subversive of discipline and unfair labour practice which constitutes misconduct under section 15(3)(h) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968.
You are, therefore, called upon to show cause within 72 (seventy-two) hours of the receipt thereof as to why disciplinary action be not taken against you for the aforesaid act of misconduct."
3. Replies were furnished but as the same were not found to be satisfactory enquiry letters were issued and separate enquiries were taken up. In both the proceedings there was a change of enquiry officers as it was found that they were witnesses in a proceeding before the N.I.R.C: and S.M.
Iqbal Oadri came to replace them. Apart from Nizamuddin who was the complainant two witnesses each were examined in both these proceedings. The petitioners however did not choose to produce and witness on their own.
4. As the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer had found them guilty of misconduct both of them were dismissed on 7-2-1991. However, the order in regard to the dismissal of Muhammad Nasim came to be withdrawn on 11-2-1991 as he was an office-bearer of the Union and was protected by section 47(2) of the IRO. The dismissal came on 26-3-1991 as in the meantime the industrial dispute had been disposed of.
5. Both of them had served grievance notices and later filed petitions before the Labour Court.
6. The petitions came to be resisted by the respondents and all the allegations came to be denied.
7. The Labour Court for reasons given by it dismissed the petition resulting in these appeals.
8. It is to be seen that Muhammad Nasim in his reply to the charge-sheet had the following to say:- - "That the actual fact was that due to injustice and discrimination done by your Management in report of two Foremen of Ampule Department and their transfer to Vial Section mala fidely there was great unrest amongst the workers including the female workers and they were perturbed and wanted explanation from the Union Officers who had announced General Body Meeting and after close of dutythey had staged out of their own free will.
That the slogans raised for unity of workers and this cannot be said to be objectionable as it is the right of the workers.
That I say that you have not disclosed as to how the slogan raising and the imaginary demonstration by any dint of imagination can be termed as aiming at coercing and pressurizing the Management for the purpose of acceptance of withdrawal of transfer order of three workers of Ampule Finishing Department.
That it is false to say that after coming of Mr. Jahangir Azar to the factory, Officers and- female staff was allowed to leave the Factory at 6-00 P.M. And 7-00 P.M, respectively."
8-A He also admitted in the cross-examination that as a result of the transfer of Haseebullah and Nawab Khan the workers were not happy.
9. Even Salamatullah in the cross-examination, was hesitant about Azar's arrival but in the next breath admitted a meeting with him at 6-00 P.M.
10. Jehangir Azar was examined in both the proceedings and mentions that he had found the lady workers in the "Gherao" of the office-bearers; and that they were allowed to leave home on his intervention, as he had promised to do his best to get the matters settled with the management to their satisfaction. There is no reason whatsoever to suspect the version 'furnished by him. Otherwise too the circumstances also lend their support to what has been spoken by him.
11. The enquiry proceedings were very fair and proper.' The petitioners were given co-workers of their choice. All the pages are duly signed and there is not a word of reproach against the Enquiry Officers.
12. The circumstances clearly indicate that the workers had re-acted to the transfer of the foremen including the appellants and had resorted to rowdy behaviour to force the respondents to rescind the orders. The orders of transfer which are an ordinary incidence of employment did not call for such a display of passions. The heat generated and the "Gherao" undeniably constitute a clear case of misconduct.
13. Under the circumstances the impugned orders need no interference and are upheld. As a consequence both these appeals stand dismissed.