1. ' The brief facts are that on 11-3-1972 the petitioner appointed respondent No, 2 (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) "Weaver" in their Mills on piece-rated basis. In April 1973 the workers in the Weaving Section of he Mills, including the respondent, resorted to Go-Slow whereupon they were charge-sheeted on 2-5-1973. The charge-sheet was served together ith a comparative statement of production in terms of number of Towels reed out by the respondent and he was informed that he was giving less roduction and had resorted to Go-Slow. He was called upon to furnish ritten explanation which he did on 15-5-1973 on receipt of the show-cause otice. Thereupon an Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the charges. The petitioner produced two witnesses before the Enquiry 0 cer. One of them furnished details of production of the respondent for 6 dates during April 1973 which was shown as considerably low as compared to the earlier production on the same looms with same quality of yarn. Another witness stated that workers had resorted to Slow- Down production deliberately since 14th April 1973. He further stated that the Maehine on which the respondent worked was in good working condition and similar raw material was given to the workers in the first fortnight of April as had been given in the second fortnight of April 1973 meaning thereby that the difference in production had taken place in spite of use of same Machinery and same material. The respondent's explanation was that less production was due to inferior quality of yarn provided to him as also due to his sickness. In his cross examination he admitted that there was fall in production but be explained that the looms sometime gave more and sometime less production. The statements of the said witnesses were recorded in the presence of the respondent and they were cross-examined by another Weaver, Muhammad Ismail, who was allowed to represent the petitioner. This fact is borne from the order of the Junior Labour Court No, 1 dated 12- 6-1974 which is one of the impugned orders in this petition. The respondent did not adduce any evidence in support of his contention and the Enquiry Officer held that the charges against him were proved. A second show-cause notice along with Enquiry notice along with Enquiry Report was served upon the respondent who was called upon to appear before the Chairman on 25-7-1973.
2. The respondent did not appear on the said date and requested for time. He remained absent on the adjourned :fate of heeling I e., 30-7-1973 whereupon he was dismissed from service on 6-8- 1973. As regards other co-wotkers who were also charged for go-slow, it is alleged that some of them resigned and collected their dues while remaining who were office-bearers of the Union, were given warning. The respondent filed a grievance petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance. 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) before the Junior Labour Court, Karachi which was deckled on 12th June 1974. At the instance of the petitioner record of 5 other workers who were also charge-sheeted for Go-Slow was produced by the petitioner. The Junior Labour Court held that from the evidence it was established that the respondent indulged in Go-Slow. It was further noted on the basis of evidence that there were other workers also besides the respondent indulged in elo-Slow. Although the grievance petition filed by the respondent failed on merits, the Junior Labour Court directed that Rs, 500 should be paid to the respondent ex grata. Aggrieved by the said order both the petitioner and the respondent filed appeals before the IV Sind Labour Court which were heard together and decided by the respondent No, 1 by a common order dated 26-10-1976. The respondent No, I decided the matter on the plain interpretation of the definition of "Go-Slow" as contained in section 2(d) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1969. In terms of the said definition the learned Labour Court noticed that before "Go-Slow" charge would come into play, there must exist a pre-arranged plan in pursuance of which the act of slowing down of normal output was done. This must be done in prosecution of common intention of more than one person. The respondent No, 1 applying this test held that there was no evidence on record that several workers bad joined together and committed Go-Slow and charging a single individual did not render the ingredients of Go-Slow applischis. Aswan the first respondent diraeted minelatemeni of the respondent No 2 with full back benefit. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
3. ' Mr. Sayeed A. Shaikh, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the impugned order of the first respondent is based on clear misreading of the evidence on record. In this connection he pointed out that it was not the case of the respondent that he had not indulged in Go-Slow along with other co-workers or that the ingredients justifying the charge of Go-Slow were not established.
4. He referred to charge-sheet dated 14-4-1973 clearly charging the respondent with Go-Slow. He further referred to the Enquiry Report wherein reference has been made to the deposition of Ahmed Khan who stated that workers had deliberately indulged in Slow-Down production since 14th April 1973. The witness had also deposed that the production results of the respondent with similar raw materials and on the same machine which was in good order, were low as compared to the output in the first and second fortnight of April 1973. The learned counsel further emphasised that at the instance of the respondent record of 5 other workers who were charge-sheeted for Go-Slow had been summoned during the course of proceedings before the Junior Labour Court. On these premises he vehemently urged that the finding of the first respondent that there was no evidence on record that several workers had joined together and committed Go-Slow was not warranted. It was further contended that in the absence of any allegation that the Enquiry Officer was biased or not impartial, the facts found by him as per his enquiry report did not call for any scrutiny by the appellate Court. Reliance was placed on 1966 PLC 57, which is a case decided by the Supreme Court of India. Ths order of the Tribunal in that case was struck down on the ground that the Tribunal was not justified in interfering with the order of dismissal from service of 12 workmen of the Company who were proceeded against on a charge of "Go-slow" and were found guilty by the Enquiry Officer. The learned counsel further referred to PLD 1976 Kari 376 in support of his contention that the Labour Courts or Tribunals cannot sit as Courts of appeal against a decision based on domestic enquiry. He also cited 1975 SCMR 46, where their Lordships of the Supreme Court have obse!Ved that Labour Court was only concerned with the question whether the action taken against the petitioner in that case was in accordance with law. The question whether the petitioner had committed theft was a question of fact and could only be enquired into by the Enquiry Officer. This contention of the learned counsel is uncontroverted and finds support from the record While there can be no dispute as to the interpretation of "Go-Slow" as contained in section 2(d) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1969 as discussed in the order of A the first respondent, the application of the said definition h dependent upon the facts of the case. The finding in this case is clearly vitiated on account of misreading of evidence on the record. It may he mentioned that the petitioner has placed several documents on record with the petition to controvert the allegation that Go-Slow was not resorted to in a concerted manner collectively by se sera workers who joined hands together in carrying out purposeful Go-Slow but reliance has not been placed on the said evidence because it was not on record before the respondents Nos, I and 3.
5. ' Mr. Shahenshah Hussain, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the finding of the first respondent stating that the Go-Slow, even if proved against the respondent was as an individual and not a concerted, organised, deliberate and collective eet 74fithin the quoin* of the definition as contained in section 2(d) of the Ordinance. The contention of the learned counsel, however, does not find support from the evidence on record.
6. It is, therefore, held that the first respondent passed the impugned order as a result of misreading of the evidence on record and the said order B dated 26-10-1974 cannot be sustained ad is declared as having been passed without lawful authority. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not address any arguments against the order of the 3rd respondent dated 12-6-1974 awarding Rs, 500, ex gratis to the respondent No, 2 and, therefore, the same is maintained.
7. ' The petition is allowed to the extent mentioned above with no order as to costs.