' ABDUL RAHIM KAZI, J.---Briefly the facts of the present petition are that the present petitioner, who has been an employee of respondent No,3 had been given charge-sheet on 27th May, 1985 alleging that the petitioner was absent from his duty on 1-4-1985 and had moved an application on the next day i.e, on 2-4-1985 to the effect that he was suffering from stomach problem and, therefore, prayed for one day leave on account of sickness. One of his superior Mr. Dobash learnt from the European Asian Bank that in fact the petitioner had appeared before the said Bank on 1- 4-1985 in connection with an interview for a job. In view of this information the petitioner, was called upon to explain and thereafter correspondence ensued between the parties. The petitioner sent his reply wherein he denied the allegations. The petitioner was charge-sheeted and put under suspension. In the correspondence that was exchanged between the parties, the petitioner repeatedly made untrue statements with regard to the reason for his absence on 1-4-1985 and also made allegations against his superior Mr. Dobash. The petitioner had also filed a civil suit in this respect which was decided against him. On 27-5-1985 a fresh charge-sheet was sent to the petitioner and thereafter an enquiry was made and he having been found guilty of misconduct, his services were terminated under Standing Order No,15(3)(a)(h) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. The petition consequently served a grievance notice and instituted an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before the Labour Court, Karachi. The Labour Court recorded the evidence of the parties and after hearing the arguments was pleased to dismiss the said application. Being aggrieved the petitioner preferred an appeal before Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal at Karachi, which was also dismissed with the modification that the petitioner was exonerated of the charge for having remained absent on 1-4-1985 but the Tribunal concurred with the findings of the Labour Court that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct on account of repeatedly making false statement and allegations against his superior officer. It is in these circumstances that the present petition has been preferred.
2. We have heard Mr. M.L. Shahani, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Abdul Hafiz, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No,
3. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner cannot be held guilty of misconduct as according to the settlement between the Union and respondent No,3, the petitioner was entitled to grant of medical leave for two days without submitting any medical certificate. He has further submitted that in the present case the allegations against the present petitioner could at the most be that of omission and error having been committed on his part which would not warrant the imposition of penalties under clause (iv) of subsection (2) of Standing Order No,
15. He has pointed out that clauses (a) and (h) of subsection (3) of Standing Order No, 15 would not be attracted in the present case. He has pointed out that absence from the duty for one day itself cannot be treated as misconduct as defined above, and, therefore, he would not be liable to the punishment as sought to be imposed against him. The learned counsel has referred to the case of Islamabad Club v. Punjab Labour Court (PLD 1980 SC 307). This case has no bearing to the present case as the point involved in the said case was that no proper and reasonable opportunity of defending himself against the charge forming the basis of disciplinary action was given to the incumbent. The next case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that of Crescent Jute Products Ltd. v. Muhammad Yakoob (PLD 1978 SC 207). In this case the question involved was that there was no evidence produced by the employer to show that the employee was guilty of disobedience indicated. In this very case it was further held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that Labour Court can go behind a dismissal order and see for itself whether such order, in the given circumstances, was or was not justified both on merits as well as on law. The learned counsel has also placed reliance on the case of P.I.A.C. v. Junior Labour Court (PLD 1978 SC 239). In this case the worker (an air-hostess) was charged for leaving base of duty without permission and, therefore, it was held that she cannot be said to have acted in insubordination or in disobedience of any lawful and reasonable order. It was further held in this case that the words "any act subversive of discipline" as provided under Standing Order No,15(3)(h) should be read with preceding words and should show reflection of act having some criminality and at the most the said case could be a case of violation of rule and not misconduct. There is no cavil about the principle of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in these cases. However, it may be observed that the law laid down by the superior Courts is to be applied to the cases of similar nature and where the facts of the case to which the said authority is sought to be applied are different and distinguishable then the same is to be judged in the light of the relevant law with utmost respect to the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the present case, the facts not only show that the petitioner had remained absent on 1-4-1985 without having sought prior permission but he had sought the grant of leave on a ground which could not be substantiated by him, rather same was controverted by his presence on that day in another Bank to appear for an interview in respect of getting a job. A person suffering from stomach problem and, therefore, claiming to be unable to attend his office could not have attended another Bank to appear in an interview. This conduct of the petitioner on the very face of it militates against him.
This fact stands proved from the evidence given by one Aminur Rahman of European Asian Bank Ltd., Karachi where the petitioner had - appeared for interview on 1-4-1985. This Mr. Aminur Rahman has sworn his affidavit before the Labour Court No,V, Karachi on 24-5-1985 and he also produced letter dated 16-4-1985 written by the said Bank to the respondent No, 3 wherein it is said that on 1- 4-1985 the petitioner had appeared before them for an interview. The two documents are placed on record on the file of this Court at pages 253 and 255. This witness has been cross-examined by Mr. Hassan Jafri, Advocate appearing for the petitioner before the two lower Courts. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to accept the finding of the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal that the first allegations against the petitioner has not been proved and, therefore, he was exonerated from such charge. We on the contrary, hold that even the first charge was also proved against the present petitioner. Consequently, we set aside the fmding of the Tribunal on first charge and restore the findings of the Labour Court.
3. Now we take up the second charge of petitioner having been repeatedly making false statements to the effect that he had not appeared for interview and making allegations against his superior Mr. Dobash. As observed above, it is evident that the petitioner had appeared before the said European. Asian Bank Ltd. On 1-4-1985 for interview, the stand taken by the petitioner repeatedly to the denial of the said charge amounts to making false statement. Not only this but the facts discussed above would also show that had been repeatedly making specific allegations against his superior officer and therefore, certainly the provisions of clauses (a) and (h) of the Standing Order No, 15(3) would be applicable. Such conduct would amount to acts as subversive of discipline. In the case of N. Maqbool Hussain v. Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court (1977 SCM R 480) their Lordships have been pleased to hold that general criticism of conduct of officers does not fall within the ambit of section 23 (a)(v). In the present case the allegations made by the petitioner are not of the nature of general criticism but they are direct allegations against the superior officer. In another case of Abdul Rashid Qureshi v. Industrial Court of West Pakistan and others (PLD 1967 SC 367) it was held that where a direct occupation against superior officer was made deliberately the same would amount to misconduct as the same could be said to be calculated to be destructive of discipline, inviting the penalty such as dismissal.
' In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the present petition, which is accordingly dismissed with the modification that the petitioner is found to be guilty an both the charges.
' Above are the reasons for the short order announced by us in Court on 14th March, 1995.