DECISION This appeal arises from the judgment of the Sixth Sind Labour Court, Hyderabad allowing the grievance petition of one Muhammad Ramzan under' section 25-A of the I.R.O. For reinstatement and back benefits.
2. The facts in brief are that Muhammad Ramzan was a permanent workman doing the work of a mason in the appellant factory since 8-10-1983. On 20th March, 1993 at about 8-30 a.m. The superior officer of the respondent asked him to be strict with the daily wage workers under his control. The respondent lost his tamper and he became violent and aggressive. He used abusive language against his officer and to show his displeasure he drove away the daily workers from the mill premises. A charge-sheet dated 30-3-1993 was served on Muhammad Ramzan. He was charged with having misbehaved with Mr. Umer Farooq, Civil Engineer when he asked him to utilise the services of the daily wage workers properly to improve the pace of work. That the respondent misbehaved with the Engineer, shouted at him and used filthy language. He even threatened him with physical harm and thus assaulted him.. He then instigated the daily wage workers to leave their work and go away. This was an at subversive of discipline for which the respondent mason was charge-sheeted.
3. The respondent mason stated in his written statement that he was a union activities taking undue interest in union activities for which the management was already displeased with him. That the person employed on daily wages trained by him had been replaced by new workers who could not work properly still he was carrying on with them. That he had not misbehaved with Farooq Sabab but he had been implicated because of his union activities.
4. A domestic enquiry was then ordered and the Enquiry Officer examined four witnesses for the management and three for the defence. He held the accused to be guilty of the charge and he was accordingly dismissed by an order dated 23-6-1993 by the General Manager. The respondent then preferred a grievance petition before the Labour Court who ordered the mason to be reinstated in service forthwith with all the back benefits. Against this order the Sugar Mill management have preferred this appeal.
5. It has been argued by Mr. Raees Mushtaq on behalf of the appellant mill that they had no enmity or grudge against the mason who was very much required by the management to remain in the mill but it was only on account of his misbehaviour with the Senior Officer that they were compelled to serve him with the charge-sheet and to order his dismissal.
6. Mr. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi, Advocate for Muhammad Ramzan has argued that the entire procedure of the enquiry is defective; that the appeal itself, is defective and the eye-witnesses have not been examined to prove in what way the mason misbehaved.
7. This Tribunal has held in a number of cases that it is imperative in this country that proper discipline should be observed in working by all departments including the mills: The very principles we were required to adopt were faith, unity and discipline. If there is lack of discipline the country cannot progress. The State has provided out of the way benefits for the working class and made provisions for the welfare but that does not mean that the worker should openly misbehave with their officers or the management, and still insist that they should continue to remain in the mills or factories. The allegation of the management is that the mason misbehaved with the Engineer for that he was charge-sheeted. His reply was obtained and a domestic enquiry was held under Order 15 of the Standing Orders Ordinance. The entire record of the enquiry was produced before the Labour Court. It cannot, therefore, be argued that the word of the labourer should be preferred against the word of the Engineer and he should be allowed to continue in the service of the Sugar Mill because the allegations were not strictly proved for want of eye-witnesses. The quantum of proof differs in case of a criminal charge from determination whether a worker is fit to be retained in service. Under Order 12 of the Standing Orders Ordinance the worker can even be dispensed with simpliciter without any stigma. Nobody can be thrusted against the wish of the management in case he is found to be disobedient, arrogant and his work is found to be unsatisfactory. The worker can take the plea of mala fide but for that the burden lies on him entirely why should any Engineer harbour for any grudge against the mason who is working satisfactorily in the same mill premises, with him.
Under the circumstances I do not consider it necessary that every word of the charge-sheet must be, proved by ocular evidence to the satisfaction of the worker. The main question is of discipline in the working of the factory and if any worker has shown little respect for discipline he has no right to ask for being retained.
9. The judgment of the Labour Court is accordingly set aside and the appeal of the Sugar Mills is allowed. The back benefits if any deposited before the Tribunal may be refunded to the mills after thirty days.