DECISION This appeal arises from an order of the Fourth Sind Labour Court, Karachi rejecting the grievance petition of the appellant for reinstatement and back benefits.
2. The facts in brief are that the applicant was employed as helper in the Globe Textile Mills Limited.
Most of-the workers were not issued letters of appointment, confirmation etc; they also demanded Old-Age and Social Security Benefits. The appellant thus formed a union though the management were against it. The appellant then complained that he had been manhandled by the management due to which he fell ill and was under treatment in the Social Security Hospital from 19-5-1994 to 7-6-1994. The appellant was however charge-sheeted on the ground that he alongwith other members of the Union stopped machines of Simplex Department and attempted to damage the machines. The appellant was also charged that he remained absent with effect from 19-5-1994 to 30-5-1994 for more than ten days. A domestic enquiry was held and these charges were proved. The appellant was found guilty of misconduct for damaging the machines and putting them out of order and instigating the workers to strike. The learned Labour Court found that the charge regarding damage to the machinery had been established and this amounted to misconduct under Standing Order 15(3)(c)(h), though the charge regarding absence was not established because he was admitted for his illness in the SESSI Hospital. The learned Court on the first charge rejected the application for reinstatement and back benefits.
3. Mr. Raja Shamsuz-Zaman, Advocate for the appellant has remained absent on the ground that he was making preparations for Umra pilgrimage and he was making arrangements to get- foreign exchange.
4. Appellant Muhammad Fazil Chohan has been heard in person. He has simply denied having caused damage to the machines.
5. Mr. Abdul Hadi Farid has argued on behalf of the management that the appellant is a habitual agitator and mischief maker and the charges against him have been proved. That in another case of similar nature he filed Constitutional petition in the High Court which was decided against him.
6. There is no substance in this appeal and no grounds have been shown for interference with the order of the Labour Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.