DECISION ' This appeal arises from the order of the Fourth Sindh Labour Court Karachi, dismissing the grievance application of the six appellants for reinstatement in service.
2. The appellants were junior team members or workmen employed by Indus Motor Company.
Karachi.. The appellant were the members of Union declared as C.B.A. In 1994. Some of them were office-bearers of the union. On 21-7-1994 Indexation Allowance was declared. It was not up to the expectation of the appellants, therefore on 23rd and 24th July, 1994 they were the black arm bands and instigated the workers to "go slow". Since this was not a secret it came to the notice of the management that the appellants were trying to instigate the worker to lower down the production.
Accordingly the appellants were charge-sheeted for misconduct on the grounds:
(i) Act subversive of discipline; and
(ii) Go slow punishable under Order 15(3)(h) and (1).
3. Domestic enquiry was conducted and the appellants were found guilty of these offences of misconduct. They were, therefore, dismissed from service. The appellants filed their grievance petition before the Fourth Sindh Labour Court claiming that the domestic enquiry was defective; that the dismissal order was not by competent Authority and that they were victimised on account of union activities. The respondents also raised the pleas that the grievance petitions were not maintainable as they did not amount to industrial dispute and that the applicants were not entitled to re-instatement.
4. The learned Labour Court - found that the grievance petitions were maintainable as dismissal amounts to industrial dispute but it was admitted that the workers showed resentment and were not happy with the amount of increment given by the company. That on 23-7-1994 admittedly only 8 cars were assembled and 16 cars were assembled on 24-7-1994. Evidence was led regarding instigation of fellow employees to slow down the production. The learned Labour Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that "it was proved from the mouth of the applicants that they received the increment on 21-7-1994, the production on 23/24th July, 1994 was 8/16 cars while the target was of 25 cars. For the reduced production there was no other reason. Everything being in order.
5. The appellants have alleged minor defects in enquiry proceedings but apparently no prejudice has been caused to the workers on that account. The dismissal order was issued by General Manager, Factory Administration and he was quite competent to issue the same.
6. I have heard Mr. Safdar Hussain, Advocate for the appellant and I can find no ground to interfere with the order of the Labour Court which appears to me to be reasonable and proper.
7. These appeals are accordingly dismissed in limine.