DECISION ' These are two connected appeals arising from orders of the Fourth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, whereby grievance petition filed by Mukarram Shah was dismissed and the grievance petition filed by Zahir Shah was allowed and he was directed to be reinstated in service with full back benefits.
Mukarram Shah has filed appeal against dismissal of his petition while Dawood Cotton Mills have preferred an appeal against the order of reinstatement of Zahir Shah.
2. The facts in brief are that Mukarram Shah was employed in the Dawood Cotton Mills, Landhi. On 28-12-1991 he was on 'B' Shift working in place of the jobber who was absent on that day. At about 6-00 p.m. Abdul Ghafoor Chowkidar caught three workers committing theft from the Canteen, one of them was Mukarram Shah. Mr. Qazi Abdur Rasheed held a domestic enquiry and found Mukarram Shah guilty. Mukarram Shah was dismissed from service. A grievance petition was filed before the Labour Court. During the trial Mukarram Shah denied having put his left thumb-mark on the petition and the Affidavit-in-Evidence. The petition was therefore found to be not maintainable and was dismissed.
3. It is said that Zahir Shah brother of Mukarram Shah working in the same mill on 3-2-1992 quarrelled with Chowkidar Abdul Ghafoor telling him that he had reported against his brother Mukarram Shah who had been dismissed and he would take revenge. A show-cause notice was issued against Zahir Shah for disorderly behaviour during working hours and the same Enquiry Officer held another enquiry against him. Enquiry report was then supplied to him alongwith second show-cause notice. By an order dated 19-3-1992 Zahir Shah was also dismissed from service. He sent his grievance notice and filed grievance petition before the Labour Court. The learned Labour Court found that this incident of riotous behaviour occurred at the Canteen during the prayer break. It could not therefore be said that the misconduct occurred in the mills premises within the duty hours. He accordingly allowed the petition and directed reinstatement of Zahir Shah with full back benefits.
4. The sub-clause (h) of S.O. 15(3) of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 defines misconduct in the following words:- "Riotous or disorderly behaviour during working hours at the establishment or any act subversive of discipline.---A Canteen in the mill can be regarded as part of the establishment. A prayer break during the working hours does not exempt the workers of liability for the act subversive of discipline."
5. It cannot therefore be held that misbehaviour in the Canteen during prayer break will not constitute misconduct.
6. It has been argued by Mr. S.A. Channa, Advocate for the respondent that the phrase "working hours" will not include intervals allowed for rest and meals. But in this case the break for Maghrib prayers and not for rest while the shift hours were continuously from 4-00 p.m. To 12-00 p.m. It cannot therefore be said that the prayer be was not part of the working day. The workers have not a licence to me quarrelsome and rowdy during interval for prayers and meals.
7. In the result the appeal filed by Mukarram Shah for reinstatement and back benefits is dismissed and the appeal filed by Dawood Cotton Mills against the order of reinstatement of Zahir Shah within full back benefits is allowed. The back benefits deposited by the Dawood Cotton Mills may be refunded.