DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order of the Labour Court dismissing the application made by the appellant for re-instatement under section 25-A, I. R.
0. The appellant was in the permanent employment of the respondent. He was charge-sheeted on 25-10-1974 and 4-11-1974 on account of some acts amounting to misconduct. He did not submit any explanation. An Inquiry Officer was appointed and the appellant was informed. He participated in the inquiry. He was found guilty and a second show-cause notice with the inquiry report was sent to him. He submitted his reply but it was not found satisfactory so he was dismissed from service on 10.12-1974.
2. The appellant after the service of the grievance notice approached the Labour Court under section 25-A, I. R.
0. Evidence was recorded. On the assessment of the evidence the application was dismissed.
Aggrieved by this the present appeal has been filed.
3. On perusal of the record and evidence and hearing of the arguments I see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Labour Court. It was urged before me on behalf of the appellant that the allegation in the charge-sheet had no relation with the actual incident. There is no substance In this contention. The allegation against the appellant was that he had fixed bobin of R/W machine incorrectly and when Abdul Latif who was Assistant Supervisor asked him to fit it properly he became insolent and did not obey his reasonable orders and furthermore tried to assault him and threatened to beat him. These allegations were contained in the charge-sheet and it is not understood how in the face of this it was urged that the allegation In the charge-sheet had no relation with the incident.
4. It was next urged on behalf of the appellant that there were two Sections viz. Tools Section and Machines Section. Who respondent was working in the Machines Section under the supervision of Mr. Mansoor and therefore, he was not bound to obey the order of Latif as he was not his subordinate but he was only responsible to Mr. Mansoor. This contention is equally devoid of force.
It is an admitted position that Abdul Latif was an Assistant Supervisor and a superior officer in the establishment of the respondent. Indeed there were two Sections but both the Sections were part of Spinning Department and connected with the same production. So even if the appellant was not directly subordinate to Abdul Latif yet the latter was the superior officer and it was the duty of the appellant to obey the reasonable and lawful order given to him specially when the appellant had committed a mistake In fixing the bobin, and he being properly guided. He was not justified in refusing Abdul Latif or acting insolently. Certainly this amounted to misconduct and called for action. In this connection a reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Calcutta Jute Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. Manufacturing Workers' Union in which it was held that wilful insubordination and disobedience of any lawful and reasonable order of the superior amounts to misconduct under Standing Order although superior officer was not directly superior to the workman. Superior means upper and higher officer and not necessarily immediate boss.
5. As regards the misconduct it was established in the domestic inquiry as well as admitted by Jawaid Iqbal, who was examined by the appellant in the inquiry. Consequently the finding of the Inquiry Officer must be accepted.
6. In the result the appeal is dismissed. (1961) 2 L L J 686