1990 PLP 298 (PLC)

Monitors standard of cabin cleaning and reports discrepancies to Cleaning Supervisor. Fully briefs departing Captain and FSS regarding expected passengers' loads, VIP/CIP/UM, restricted cargo and any other relevant information. Liaises with Ground Engineer, Captain FSS to achieve an on‑time passenger release from terminal building. Passes final passenger figure to FSS and updates special passenger information. Supervises baggage/cargo on board to effect an on‑schedule departure. Assists with passengers boarding in liaison with Passenger Services Supervisor. Despatches and collects OGS mail, diplomatic and valuable articles. Effects liaison with Airport Co‑ordinator to pass timings of events starting and finishing, other information related to flight arrival or departure and passenger release from the terminal for boarding. Liaises with Ground Engineer on aircraft arrival and with Ground Engineer/Captain during aircraft turn round concerning aircraft serviceability. Carries out other duties related to job function as may be required by Airport Officer or Airport Manager. During certain periods may be called upon to assist in other areas of station activity. Liaises with boarding staff at the gate. Position and operate pax loading bridge." A bare reading of this `Job description' would show that most of the job had to be carried out by the respondent by personal efforts without assistance of any one else whereas he has to render assistance to many others. It involves mental as well as manual work. Admittedly if no other personnel was available he had to work at the Counter and help in checking‑in the passengers. Admittedly he did not have any powers of hire or fire and did work under the supervision of Airport Manager. I am in entire agreement with the Labour Court who has given cogent reasons for coming to the finding that the respondent was a workman.

6. With regard to the question as to whether respondent could accept money in Foreign Exchange I do not find that there is any charge‑sheet on that ground and furthermore even Mr. Hassan Shah Rashidi, witness for the appellant had admitted in the cross‑examination that no circular was produced by the management before the Enquiry Officer that briefing personnel could not receive Foreign Exchange from the passengers. There is no material on the record to show that any instructions were issued by the appellants prohibiting their employees from accepting the Foreign Exchange from the passengers.

7. With regard to limitation admittedly the alleged act of misconduct did take place on 22nd May. Standing Order 15(4) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 provides as under:‑‑ "(4) No order of dismissal shall be made unless the workman concerned is informed in writing of the alleged misconduct within one month of the date of such misconduct or of the date on which the alleged misconduct comes to the notice of the employer and is given an opportunity to explain the circumstances alleged against him. The approval of the employer shall be required in every case of dismissal and the employer shall institute independent inquiries before dealing with charge against a workman." Charge‑sheet is admittedly dated 21st June, 1986. In reply to the charge‑sheet, which is dated 23‑6‑1986, the respondent informed the appellant that he was served with this charge‑sheet on 22nd, that is after one month but his this averment was not refuted by the appellant. Admittedly the witness of the appellant has not stated in the affidavit that he served the charge‑sheet on the respondent on 21st. Admittedly no question has been suggested to the respondent that charge‑sheet was served upon him on 21st. The mere fact that charge‑sheet was dated 21st would not raise presumption that it was also served upon the respondent on 21st. No doubt it can raise presumption that it was signed on 21st and it may have been issued on 21st but cannot raise presumption that it was also served on the respondent on 21st. The relevant provision requires the information should be brought to the knowledge of the workman within the specified period. Stress is upon the `knowledge of workman' and not upon the `Issuance of notice within one month'.

8. Mr. Nizam Ali Khan has relied upon 1979 P L C page

185. It may be pointed out that in the reported case the question and issue before his Lordship was whether the workman had filed the grievance petition under section 25‑A within time and his Lordship came to the conclusion that even if it is held that subsection (1) of section 12 of the Limitation Act was not applicable to an application under section 25‑A of I.R.O., 1969, but the principle adopted by English Courts can be pressed into service for excluding the first day of the commencement of the cause of action, as it will be in accord with equity and good conscience. It may also be pointed out that the provisions of Limitation Act are made applicable to the I.R.O. under section 65‑B of the I.R.O. whereas provisions of Limitation Act are not made specifically applicable to the provisions of the Standing Orders Ordinance. Furthermore, the purpose and spirit of all the Labour Laws is the welfare and protection of interests of the labour. This principle was also in the mind of his Lordship when the principle of good conscience and equity was pressed while condoning the delay by one day in the above reported case. The relevant provision of Standing Orders Ordinance, which I have reproduced above, and its words are too clear to leave any room for doubt and even the appellants were quite concious of it and, therefore, were careful to draft the charge‑sheet within specified period but may be due to some lapse on some ones part it could not be served in time.

9. This provision has been enacted for the protection of workmen and if two versions are possible the version which is beneficial to a workman would naturally have to be adopted.

10. I need not discuss the alleged act of misappropriation if at all there is any misappropriation. The appellants have other legal remedies available and it is not proper to prejudice the case of the parties by giving finding on this point in view of above finding on the point of limitation, in view of specific bar contained in Standing Order 15(4) prohibiting order of dismissal unless the misconduct is brought to the knowledge of the workman within one month from the date of misconduct.

11. For the above reasons I dismiss this appeal. A.E./1434/Lb. S Appeal dismissed.