2001 PLP 28 (PLC)

You and other office‑bearers of the Union. instigated the workers of the Water Cooler and Hot Pot Assembly who are not giving usual production since 23‑4‑1990 and demanded higher incentive payment. Although the Company is allowing the usual normal production incentive. You and others have been repeatedly persuaded not to indulge in the said acts but to no avail. Your above acts are causing great loss of production and monetary loss to the Company. Your above acts amount to misconduct as per S.O. Order 15(3)(9)(c), (h) and (1) of the IMP are 1968 for which you are hereby charge‑sheeted as an employee of the Company. You are, therefore, directed to explain your conduct in writing within (2) days as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against you for the above as per the law." In support of his plea, he referred to Standing Order 15(4), which reads 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."

7. The charge‑sheet, if read as a whole, has two main paragraphs, first paragraph relates to instigation of the workers of the Cistern Assembly and General Assembly Section not to give normal production since 25‑2‑1990, whereas the second paragraph relates to the instigating the workers of the Water Cooler and Hot Pot Assemble, who are not giving usual production since 23‑4‑1990". Se, with regard to the instigation of the workers of Water Cooler and Hot Pot Assembly. The charge of instigation is dated 23‑4‑1990, as such, the charge‑sheet issued on 8‑5‑1990, in relation to second paragraph, is clearly within time. In any case, on my enquiry from the learned counsel/representative for the parties, admittedly, no such plea was taken by the appellants either in the grievance notice, grievance petitions, affidavit‑in‑evidence or even made orally before the learned Presiding Officer.

8. Mr. Azmati submitted, secondly, that the enquiry proceedings against the appellants, were held ex parte and, as such, the principles of natural justice have been violated. I asked Mr. Rizvi, to take down, during the Court break, all the dates of hearing fixed in the matter, which was duly prepared by him, giving also relevant page numbers of the file. It is placed on record. A perusal of the same shows that as a result of the order passed by the learned Single Bench, N.I.R.C., on miscellaneous application, the enquiry proceedings were held in the office of the Deputy Registrar N.I.R.C., on as many as over a dozen of dates. Enquiry report with full proceedings have been placed on the record of the lower Court (at page 227) which illustrate, in detail, the whole proceedings, which, in short, reveal that at some stage, the appellants boycotted the proceedings and ultimately chose to remain absent of their own free‑will. The enquiry proceedings, though held in the office of the Deputy Registrar. N.I.R.C., were adjourned on several dates due to the absence of the Deputy Registrar. Ultimately, the Enquiry Officer had to record the statements of the respondents witnesses. No witness was produced on behalf of the appellants. The enquiry proceedings were, therefore, concluded on 8‑4‑1991. His findings appears at pages 419 and 423, which go to prove that the appellants were instrumental in instigating the workers. As a result of enquiry, they were dismissed by letter, dated 5‑8‑1992 (page 39) for misconduct. It seems pertinent to reproduce the said dismissal order which reads as under:‑‑ This refers to the charge‑sheet, dated 8th May, 1990 your explanation thereto which was found unsatisfactory and, therefore, a domestic enquiry was ordered to be held which you deliberately avoided to be completed with the result that an application was made to the N.I.R.C., in a pending case before it to deputy/appoint someone to supervise the enquiry. With mutual consent the Deputy Registrar of the Commission was deputed to supervise your and other pending enquiries but the same delaying tactics were again adopted. The Enquiry Officer had, therefore, no choice but to complete the remaining enquiry ex parte after giving you repeated opportunities. During the enquiry you were provided full opportunity of defence. Based on the facts deposed during the enquiry and documents produced during the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer found you guilty of the charges levelled against you as per uie details given in this Enquiry Report, dated 12th October, 1991 but no disciplinary action could be taken against you in view of the pendency of the industrial dispute before Labour Court/Tribunal and particularly due to the Stay Orders given by the Single Bench and the Full Bench of the. N.I.R.C., in Cases Nos. 4A(65) of 1990 under section 22‑A(B)(g), I.R.O., 1969 and the Appeal No.12(112) of 1991 filed by you and others which has now been decided by the Full Bench of the Commission vide its Order, dated 26th July, 1992. The cross Appeals Nos.KAR.326 of 1991 and 322 in the Industrial dispute were also finally decided by, the Tribunal on 27th February, 1992. Therefore, now there remain no impediments to take disciplinary action against you in accordance with the law. In view of the charges levelled against you having been duly provided in the enquiry as explained above, it has been decided to dismiss you from services in the company w.e.f., the close of work on 4th August, 1992. You may collect your full and final settlement dues from the Accounts Department as soon as possible after obtaining the necessary clearance."

9. Being aggrieved with the dismissal order, the appellants gave grievance notices and ultimately filed grievance petitions registered as 297, 298 and 299 of 1992 in the First Sindh Labour Court, which seem tax have been, later on, transferred to the Second Sindh Labour Court and the said petitions were re‑numbered as 103, 102 and 101 of 1997 and were dismissed by the learned Presiding Officer, as referred to hereinabove.

10. The enquiry proceedings, which may properly be termed as disciplinary proceedings against the appellants, were taken in a proper manner, after issuing a number of notices to the appellants and affording all the opportunity to the appellants to appear and defend. As such; I am convinced that no principles of natural justice have been violated. Reliance may be placed on Supreme Court authority reported as Mujahid Hussain Shah v. K.S.B. Pump Company Ltd. and 2 others (1997 PLC 132).

11. Mr. Azmati submitted, thirdly, that the alleged misconduct as required under Standing Order 15(3), has not been proved. The submission, in the light of the evidence, recorded by the Enquiry Officer as well as by the learned Presiding Officer, seems entirely misconceived and is rejected outright.

12. Having thoughtfully considered the decision,' given by the learned Sindh Labour Court No.2 and the evidence, oral as well as documentary, leave no room for doubt in my mind that the impugned order is very well -written, considering all the issues in proper perspective, supported by evidence on record and law and is unexceptionable. I, therefore, find no force, in the appeals, which are dismissed. Announced in open Court, this 16th December, 1999. H. B. T. /2/K (Lab. Trib) Appeals dismissed.