DECISION ' The factual background of two appeals bearing Nos.146 of 1999 and 148 of 1999 respectively filed by Khadim Hussain and Muhammad Hussain may briefly be described as follows. Both the appellants were employed in the Fauji Sugar Mills, Tando Muhammad Khan as Chowkidars. They claim to have performed their duties to the entire satisfaction of the Management. However on 27- 2-1991 the General Manager and the then Personnel Manager Major (Retd.) Javed Arsal were attacked by the workers and the office-bearers of C.B.A. Union. The appellants being Chowkidars it was their basic duty to have ensured protection of the Mills and the persons working in the Mill. But instead they were alleged to have collaborated with the criminals which completely shattered the confidence of the Management in them. Obviously the appellants failed in their duty. They were therefore, swiftly dismissed from their service vide Order, dated 2-3-1991. Following the filing of Grievance Petitions by them, the Sindh Labour Court No,VI, Hyderabad set aside the said orders of their dismissal and reinstated the appellants in service. However, the management was left free to hold domestic enquiry in the matter. Lt.-Col. (Retd.) Haq Nawaz Khan, Personnel Manager of Fauji Sugar Mills was appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct the domestic enquiry on the charges given in the Dismissal Order. The said enquiry was held but the appellants did not participate in the same, though they were given such notice. They were even advised to appear for the enquiry on 27-2-1994 at Officers Mess along with their co-workers. Meanwhile the appellants filed appeal against the portion of the order whereby enquiry was ordered but somehow before filing such appeals they had once again filed Grievance Petition after serving Grievance Notice on the Management, their said appeals were dismissed as being infructuous.
2. It is disclosed in the Case Papers relating to enquiry that appellants instead of seriously participating in the enquiry were on getting adjournment after adjournment from the Enquiry Officer who was ultimately constrained to complete the enquiry ex parte and submitted his report..
The appellants were once again dismissed from service vide Dismissal Letter dated 5-3-1994. The appellants served Grievance Notice dated 17-5-1994 which the Management refused to accept and as such it remained unserved as refused. The appellants ultimately filed Grievance Petition on 10-7-1994 in the VIth Sindh Labour Court, Hyderabad whereupon written statement was filed, evidence of parties was recorded and after hearing the arguments of the parties' learned counsel, the Labour Court dismissed the Grievance Petitions and as a result, the appellants were once again dismissed vide Labour Court's Order, dated 17-8-1999. It is the said order of appellants' dismissal which has been called in question in the present appeals.
3. The foremost point for consideration in this case is whether appellants were workmen. No doubt the learned Labour Court has replied this point in the affirmative. But I am sorry to say that there is no basis for such finding. No evidence has been brought on record to show that the appellants being in the employment of the Management were engaged in doing manual or clerical work and therefore, for that reason they have been put in the category of workmen. In 2/3 cases relating to Chowkidars I have taken the view that they were not workmen. But that does not mean that there are no cases in which even the Chowkidars were made to do manual as well as clerical work and for that reason they could appropriately be called as workmen. But in this particular case the very incident which led to the termination of their services related to attack by office-bearers and other workers on the Personnel Manager and General Manager. But unfortunately the appellants failed to perform their duties and as such they could not save the aforesaid Officers from attack. I am therefore, convinced that in this particular case since the appellants were Chowkidars and their primary duty was to ensure security of the mill and the persons working there but somehow they miserably failed in their duties. This was precisely the reason that the Management took no time in ordering their dismissal from service.
4. Having arrived at the conclusion that the appellants were . Chowkidars and not workmen their grievance petitions filed by them both times were not maintainable. As such they could not invoke jurisdiction of Labour Court for purpose of their reinstatement and back benefits. Somehow in the first round of litigation following the filing of grievance petition the Labour Court erroneously accepted their petitions and ordered their reinstatement. While doing so the Management was also left free to hold enquiry with regard to appellants' failure in duty. Since the appellants were not workmen the enquiry was not called for. Nevertheless if it was held against them, it may be regarded as a chance given to them to prove their innocence but instead of actively participating in the enquiry they avoided to take part in it so much so that they repeatedly got adjournment of the enquiry on some or other excuse from the Enquiry Officer who was finally constrained to close the enquiry as ex parte. Nevertheless they could not escape the liability of the attack made on the aforesaid Officers of the Management. Consequently they were rightly punished and were dismissed from their service.
5. While agreeing with the learned Labour Court as to the correctness of the Order of Dismissal of the appellants from service, I have obviously given different reasons for the same conclusion arrived at by the Labour Court. In result the appeals filed by the appellants against the order of Labour Court are dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.