DECISION ' This appeal arises from the order of the Fourth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, whereby the grievance petition of one Ch. Masood Ahmed for reinstatement was allowed but without any back benefits.
2. The facts in brief are that respondent Ch. Masood Ahmed was employed as a fitter in the appellant Machine Tool Factory, Landhi, Karachi. He was a permanent workman with 20 years of service. The respondent Ch. Masood Ahmed was earlier removed from service and thereafter reinstated. During the interval he had fallen ill and he had demanded medical expenses bill, payment of which had been delayed by the management. The tamper of the respondent was already high and he was not pleased with the management. On tM top of it the re-imbursement of medical charges took a long time. He therefore got annoyed and wrote a very strong letter to the management dated 23-64'986. In that letter he used filthy and abusive terms for his employers calling them with innuendo such as: {{URDU TEXT}}
3. The context in which these filthy and abusive phrases were used for the management is reproduced below for proper evaluation of the tamper of the respondent: {{URDU TEXT}}
4. The respondent was therefore issued a charge-sheet for misconduct dated 14th July, 1986, describing the above act on the part of the respondent, as subversive of discipline, constituting, grave misconduct, warranting disciplinary action under the West Pakistan Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968.
5. But by that time the respondent, who appeared very clever, left the Machine Tool Factory on leave and proceeded to his native place somewhere in the Punjab. This charge-sheet was accordingly sent to him by registered post on 17-7-1986. This was within the period of 30 days as required under Order 15(4) . Of the Standing Orders Ordinance.
6. In fact a person who gives such filthy abuse to his employer has sufficient knowledge of its consequences that a charge-sheet would follow. In fact this was a challenge hurled at his employers and he left the Machine Tool Factory and returned to his native place in the Punjab perhaps under the impression that after such conduct, no employer would possibly tolerate him.
7. The learned Advocate for the respondent has raised two objections to his dismissal; firstly that the use of abusive language for the employer is not an act of misconduct under Order 15 of the Standing Orders Ordinance. The language used in the charge-sheet that "the aforesaid act on your part is subversive of discipline and constitutes grave misconduct which warrants disciplinary action against you under West Pakistan Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968", does not cover such misconduct relating to use of abusive language by letter". According to the learned counsel the act subversive of discipline under subsection 3(h) is to be read together with disorderly behaviour during working hours at the establishment being termed ejusdem generis. Since the writing of letter was not during working hours in the establishment such letter would not be prohibited under sub-clause (h). This sub-clause has however not been used in the charge-sheet. What has been stated in an act of grave misconduct under the Standing Orders Ordinance so that it has to be seen whether such an act is included in the list of acts and omissions under sub-clause (3) of section 15 or not. Moreover, another point arises whether the list of illustrations given under subsection (3) is to be considered as exhaustive or is a guide for such acts of misconduct which are to be punished. For instance sub-clause (a) shows wilful insubordination and these insults to the management also fall under the phrase wilful insubordination which is also punishable by dismissal as a misconduct.
8. The next point urged by the learned counsel is that the charge-sheet was actually received by the respondent at his native place on 29-7-1986. That this was late by 5 days beyond the period of 30 days allowed. It is a well known proposition of law that Post Office works as an agent of the addressee and delivery to Post Office, amounts to delivery to the addressee himself. Under the Contract Act, acceptance of proposal despatched in due course, by post, is complete from the time of despatch, notwithstanding any delay or miscarriage in arrival from causes not within the control of the accepter". It has not been alleged that the charge-sheet was sent on a wrong address or was misdirected. Therefore the date of delivery would be the date of despatch on 17-7- 1986 and therefore within time. Even otherwise as already stated the respondent who wrote such obusive letter had sufficient knowledge that he had committed a misconduct, for which he would be charge-sheeted and punished. The law does not allow this type of hooliganism in the factories.
Orderly behaviour is expected of all the workers with regard to the management. A worker is not supposed to call such names regarding his employers, and get away with it, nor does he suppose that later would come to his rescue because he is the labourer. This is not the purpose of the labour laws to encourage indiscipline in the factories.
9. The order of the Labour Court re-instating the respondent is therefore set aside. The connected cross-appeal for not granting the back benefits also becomes infructuous.
' In view of the finding regarding reinstatement, the appeal of M/s. Pakistan Machine Tool Factory is therefore allowed and the cross Appeal of Ch. Masood Ahmed the fitter is dismissed.