' RANA BHAGWAN DAS, J.---The petitioner management seeks to impugn the appellate order dated 26-5-1991 passed by respondent No,2, setting aside the dismissal order passed by Sindh Labour Court No,VI dismissing the grievance petition of the respondent No,1 under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
2. The respondent No,1 was employee with the petitioner management as a permanent workman with effect from 23-6-1972, initially as a helper and subsequently promoted as wireman and lastly serving as an electrician.
3. Precise charge against him is that on 2-7-1988 he left his duty half an hour before closing hour.
He was served with a charge-sheet dated 3-7-1988 calling upon him to explain his misconduct within the meaning of section 15(3) (a)(h) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 (hereinafter referred as the Standing Orders). A domestic enquiry was held and he was found guilty of misconduct. He took his case to the Sindh Labour Court, Hyderabad where his petition was dismissed. However, he succeeded before the Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No,Hyd/53/1990. Learned Appellate Tribunal took the view that the act of the respondent in leaving the duty half an hour before the close of duty hours would not fall within the mischief of wilful insubordination or disobedience as defined in clause (a), subsection
(3) of the Standing Order 15 and the act of the respondent, if at all any would fall within the scope of clause (ii) of Standing Order 15(1) involving a punishment of reprimand or fine.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent No, 1 and gone through the impugned decision.
5. On a careful scrutiny of the impugned order as well as the record, we are of the considered view that by setting aside the dismissal order passed by the petitioner management as well as the dismissal of grievance petition by Labour Court, learned Appellate Tribunal neither committed an illegality nor acted without jurisdiction. Learned Appellate Tribunal has assigned valid and sound reasons for arriving at a conclusion which is not amenable to interference in the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court which is always discretionary. We may add that the act of respondent No, 1 may amount to disobedience of the Rules or Regulations of the management but not tantamount to a misconduct as defined under the law involving harsh punishment of dismissal.
To our mind the management was too touchy and sensitive in taking the most harsh action against respondent No, 1 by terminating his employment. The impugned order on the face of it is neither arbitrary nor perverse or in excess of authority. It does not, therefore call for any interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction which is exercised with restraint and circumspection to secure the ends of justice.
6. Since the Appellate Tribunal re-instated respondent No, 1 with 50% back benefits he has been adequately punished for his act and there is no further scope for upholding the dismissal order.
7. In the circumstances there is no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. With the decision of the petition miscellaneous application is rendered infructuous and is accordingly disposed of.