DECISION ' This appeal arises from an order of 6th Sindh Labour Court, Hyderabad whereby the grievance petition of the appellant Muhammad Aslam Clerk was dismissed.
2. The fact of the case in brief are that on 6th May, 1992 the appellant pasted a Poster on Mills'
Notice Board with the intention to incite the workers. This Poster was not signed. The alleged poster was as under:-- r {{URDU TEXT}}
3. The appellant was accordingly served with the show-cause notice for misconduct under section 15(3)(h). This clause relates to rioting or commotion and is as under:-- "(h) riotous or disorderly behaviour during working hours at the establishment or any act subversive of discipline."
4. A domestic enquiry was held in which it was established that the appellant was seen pasting this Poster on the Notice Board of the mill premises. He was accordingly dismissed from service. The learned Labour Court found that the dismissal was justified and the grievance petition was therefore dismissed.
5. The only question for consideration in this case is whether the alleged act of pasting the Poster is violation of any rule of the Factory or whether it amounts to a misconduct under section 15(3)(h) of the Standing Orders Ordinance. It is said that some incident had taken place and F.I.R. Was lodged by the President of the Union and he was sent to the Hospital. There is no evidence whether transfusion was actually needed for the President of the Union. Be that as it may the only point that arises is whether the contents of the Poster amounts to riotous or disorderly behaviour or any act subversive of discipline.
6. Mr. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi for the appellant has referred to P.I.A. v. Junior Labour Court No, IV PLD 1978 SC 239 and stated that it was held by Supreme Court of Pakistan that the words ' any act subversive of discipline' must be construed ejusdem generis with the preceding words, "riotous or disorderly behaviour". The contents of the Poster may be mischievous but they did not lead to any riot or disorder in the mill premises. The said act therefore does not amount to the particular misconduct with which the appellant was charged.
7. Under the circumstances, no misconduct had been proved against the appellant within the meaning of Order 15(3)(h). Possibly the facts may constitute an act or commission under clause
(ii) of Order 15 but the appellant was not charged with commission of any sub-clause under Standing Order 15(1)(ii) such as making false or misleading statement etc. Therefore, technically the misconduct under Standing Order 15(3) not having been proved the appellant cannot be held liable for dismissal. The order of the Labour Court is accordingly set aside, the appellant is directed to be re-instated in service within 30 days with all the back benefits.