DECISION ' These five appeals call in question the composite order passed by the Labour Court, Hyderabad dismissing their petitions filed under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969. The facts forming the background of the cases, in brief, are as follows.
2. The respondents deal in medicines and have a net work of their Offices and Stores throughout the country. They employ 45 workers at Hyderabad. It appears that two of these employees, namely Irshad and Liaquat Ali had been served with transfer orders. This had caused a widespread resentment among the workers, and as the orders were not withdrawn, there was a strike on 28-10- 1989, which gained further momentum on 29-10-1989. Reports of illegal strike and cessation of work as a consequence, were sent to the Labour Directorate at Hyderabad and on the intervention of the authorities normalcy was restored later in the day on 29-10-1989.
3. The petitioners were issued separate charge-sheets on 13-11-1989. It was alleged that they had instigated the workers to go on strike and had stopped the Depot Manager and the Warehouse Incharge from opening the offices arid the Warehouse, so the medicines and the lifesaving drugs could not be despatched locally, or to the upper regions of the country.
4. The petitioners had denied the allegations in their Written Reply filed by them but that did not satisfy the respondents and separate enquiries were ordered against them. Zahid Hussain Rizvi was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. However, on the objections being raised by two of the appellants namely Muhammad Iqbal and Nafees Ahmed, Zahid Hussain Rizvi was replaced by Mehboob Alam, who was an outsider.
5. During the domestic enquiry Peer Muhammad, the Depot Manager, Muhammad Khan, the Field Manager and Rafiquddin, the Warehouse Incharge were examined. Some of the petitioners examined witnesses in defence also. The Enquiry Officer found that misconduct had been made out against the petitioners, and they came to be dismissed on 20-2-1990.
6. The petitioner, after serving grievance notices, had filed petitions before the Labour Court in which they had appeared as their own witnesses. Saghir Hussain Naqvi, the Administrative Manager of the respondent company appeared on behalf of the respondents. His cross- examination in one case was transferred on the remaining four files with the consent of the parties.
7. The Labour Court finding that the enquiry had not been fairly and properly held, allowed the petitions with consequential benefits.
8. The appeal had come before me earlier, and the matter was remanded to the Labour Court by a consent order which reads as follows: "By consent the parties have agreed that the case be remanded to the Labour Court for decision on facts as well as on law and that the respondent will continue to remain in service ' The matter was reheard by the Labour Court resulting in the impugned order.
9. Saghir Hussain Naqvi has been reticent about the strike. All the same he had mentioned that he had sent a word about the strike to the General Secretary of the C.B.A. At Lahore. But the three witnesses at the enquiry had given detailed account of the happenings. The "Y" Forms sent to the Labour Directorate have also been brought on the record. It appears that three of the appellants had filed proceedings before the N.I.R.C. Complaining about unfair labour practice on the part of the respondents. That had a bearing with this dispute. Prohibitory order and the later order dismissing the petition by the N.I.R.C. Has been placed on the record. It is not necessary, in the circumstance of the case, to anim-advert (sic) to the same except the bare mention that it copiously refers to the strike. It might as well be mentioned that even the General Secretary of the CBA from Lahore was not produced on behalf of the appellants to rebut the testimony of Saghir Hussain. As the matter stood, there could be no question of rebuttal.
10. A tardy attempt was made by the appellants, at a later stage, to establish that there could be no business activity on these two days because there was a murder in the office of the "Blue Lines", Coach Service, bringing supplies to the respondents' Office at Hyderabad. This was, however, not the plea in the reply to the show-cause notice, the grievance petitions or ever in the affidavit-in- evidence. I have no hesitation in holding that there was an illegal strike going on for two days to coerce the respondents to withdraw the orders in regard to the transfer of Irshad and Liaquat, two of the aforesaid appellants.
11. However, the case of the appellants is that a trumped up charges had been spun out against them as the respondents were irked because of their involvement in trade union activities. No further details have been put on the record in support of this allegation. Admittedly four of the appellants did not belong to the C.B.A. And even Muhammad Waseem was only a Joint Secretary of the Union that was the C.BA. There is nothing on the record to show that there was any ferment a foot among the workers for any cause, or that there was any Charter of Demands which had been raised. There was also nothing to show that any untoward incident had happened to sour relations between the parties. There is ample law that mere insinuations and suggestions are not enough.
These have got to be satisfactorily proved. (See WAPDA v. Amjad Hayat 1968 SCMR 582, Rana Muhammad Sarwar v. Government of Punjab 1990 SCM R 999, etc.). Nothing of the sort was even attempted. The accusations patently were mere establishments full of sound and fury signifying nothing.
12. The enquiries held against the appellants were long drawn and more than a hundred questions were put to Peer Muhammad in cross-examination in all the five proceedings. Even the other two witnesses did not get much of a respite. It is true that a number of objections were put on the record before the Enquiry Officer. Raees Ahmed in one of the applications insisted that all the witnesses in the enquiry should be first examined-in-chief and their cross-examination should be carried out later on so that they should not be in a position to fill up the gap or improve on the version of the earlier witnesses. There is another letter that during the enquiry there should not be any movement of people, and no attending to telephone calls, so that the enquiry should be held in a peaceful atmosphere. Another letter says that the enquiry should be in accordance with the procedure of the Court. Then there is another to the effect that while he was engaged in the cross- examination of Peer Muhammad, Muhammad Khan and Rafiquddin should be kept in attendance so that their statements be carried out soon thereafter. Most of the applications are of such nature.
The fact, however, remains that on their complaints whatever their worth, Zahid Hussain Rizvi was replaced by Mehboob Alam in the enquiry against two of the appellants.
13. All the statements covering hundreds of pages are signed by the appellants. There were long drawn cross-examination of the witnesses. Defence had been led on their behalf where so desired and there is nothing to show that they had any personal allegations to prefer against any of the two Enquiry Officers.
14. Under the circumstances, if these Enquiry Officers have not been examined before the Labour Court, not even the faintest prejudice could be said to have occurred. That the copy of the complaint had not been supplied to them will hardly mean anything as all the particulars had been furnished to them in the show-cause notices. (See Dawood Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Guftar Shah and another PLD 1981 SC 225).
15. Transfer of employees is an incidence of service. There was no occasion to proceed on an illegal strike bringing the work to a standstill. There can be no manner of doubt that the appellants were guilty of misconduct and under the circumstances their dismissal cannot be found fault with.
Reference to the cases of Akhtar Ali Hur v. Trustees of Port of Karachi and another 1991 PLC 301 and Souvenir Tobacco Co. v. Sindh Labour Court No, 2 and others 1987 PLC 605 by Mr. Bashir Awan in the circumstances of the case will hardly be apt.
16. I will, therefore, affirm the impugned order and dismiss the appeals.