1. This is an application under section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, praying for permission to dismiss the respondent.
2. The respondent, Fateh Mohammad is office-bearer of the Labour Union end his employer is Crescent Textile Mills Limited, Sargodha Road, Lyallpur. An industrial dispute between the Union and the employer is pending before he conciliator. It is alleged that the respondent was guilty of misconduct, therefore, permission for his dismissal may be granted by this Court.
3. The respondent was charge-sheeted; the allegations against him were hat on 23rd July 1974 in the morning, Muhammad Hanif Fitter found V--3eit of some machines in line No. 5, loose, he alongwith Line Jobber Allah Bux began to tighten the V-Belts but the respondent stopped him from doing so, that he gathered together other workers of the mills and directed hem not to work on the machines where the V-Belts were tightened. In this way he interfered in the management and did not allow Muhammad Hanif and Allah Bux to do their work by duress and coercion and he also insulted his superiors and was guilty of riotous and disorderly behaviour. The charge-sheet mentioned that he was guilty under section 15 (3) (a) and
(h) of the Standing Orders- Ordinance, 1968. The acts and Commissions amounting to miscondent under the above provisions are as under:-
(a) willful insubordination or disobedience, whether alone or in combination with others, to any lawful and reasonable order of a superior;
(b) riotous or dis-orderely behaviour during working hours at the establishment or any at subversive of discipline.
4. Mr. Manzoor Hussain Siddiqi (P. W. 1), General Duty Officer of the Mills was appointed as Inquiry Officer in this case. The inquiry proceedings have been brought on record. In this case evidence of Muhammad Hanif and Allah Bux must be looked into. Allah Bux is a Line Jobber in the Mills. His duty was to supervise the work of the siders. He checked the V-Belts at 6-00 a. m. And found that they were loose. He directed Muhammad Hanif Fitter to tighten the V-Belts. He said that as Fitter started to tighten them Fateh Muhammad stopped him saying that the Belts should not be tightened. On this Muhammad Hanif answerd that he would be responsible for it. In reply Fateh Muhammad said that he was answerable to his superiors. Muhammad Hanif fitter also appeared as a witness before the Inquiry Officer. He said that Allah Bux Line Jobber informed him that some V-Belts were loose and so they should be tightened. He said that he took keys with him, tightened the V-Belts of Machine No. 61 but as he wanted to tighten Belt of Machines Nos. 62 and 63 Fateh Muhammad came there. According to him Fateh Muhammad told him that Belts would be left at the same position as it was during the working hours of "C" shift. He further said that the Belts were not tightened and a report was made to Master Sardar Muhammad, Shift Incharge. According to him Fateh Muhammad neither abused them nor gave any beating. According to him 2 other workers remained standing there but they did not interfere nor Fateh Muhammad instigated to do anything.
5. The Inquiry Officer, in his report, concluded that the respondent was not guilty for the charge under section 15 (a) but he was guilty for the charge under section 15 (b)
6. The first question which I have to examine is whether finding of the inquiry officer is based on no evidence and is perverse. Of course, it appears that there had been no violation of any principle of natural justice because the respon--dent was charge-sheeted, an inquiry officer was appointed he gave full chance of defence and thereafter a show-cause notice was served on the respondent.
7. I am fully alive to the proposition of law that a Labour Court does not sit in appeal over or substitute its own judgment for that of the inquiry officer. However, I find that if the inquiry officer had given conclusion that the respondent was not guilty of willful insubordination or disobedience then there was no material on record to give a finding that he was guilty of riotous or disorderly behaviour during working hours at the establishment or any at subversive of discipline. In brief, the evidence produced before the inquiry officer was that Belts of the machines on which the respondent was working were loose, that the Line Jobber and the Fitter wanted to tighten them but the respondent told them that they should not be tightened. All other allegations that the respondent was guilty ' of any riotous or disorderly behaviour or that he insulted his superiors or used any coercive methods argil not proved. The question is whether the above evidence is sufficient to hold the respondent guilty fee insubordination or any at subversive to discipline. It was a matter of opinion. In the opinion of the respondent, the work was likely to suffer if the V-Belts were tightened. On the other hand the Line Jobber was of the opinion that they should be tightened. Ordinarily, to workers can have a difference of opinion as to how a particular work, should be done. In my opinion, it is a case of no evidence.
8. It has been brought to my notice that the respondent was an office bearer of the Union, therefore, Mills Management, intend to victimize him over a minor thing. In these circumstances, I refuse to give permission for dismissal. Application is rejected.