1988 PLP 754 (PLC(CS))

‑‑Ss.25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Bank employee‑‑Dismissal for misconduct‑‑Office bearer of trade union or its active member is not over and above the law and cannot claim that he cannot be punished for an offence or misconduct‑‑Charge of assault on and misbehaviour with officer of management‑‑One accused using filthy, abusive, and objectionable language in letters addressed to management reflecting their character and attitude‑‑Accused, despite proper notices and a number of adjournments at their request avoiding to participate in enquiry on excuse of illness‑‑Charge established in ex parte enquiry‑‑Labour Court, held, rightly taking notice of objectionable language used in letters by accused as accused were guilty of misconduct‑‑Contention of victimization on account of trade union activities not established‑ Order of Labour Court dismissing grievance petition against penalty of dismissal from service upheld by Appellate Tribunal. Ishaq Abbasi for Appellants. Iqbal Habib for Respondents. Date of hearing, 15th February, 1988. These are three separate appeals filed by the three appellants against a common impugned order, dated 17‑9‑1987, passed by the Sind Labour Court No.VI at Hyderabad, who had dismissed the grievance petitions under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969, separately filed by each appellant. As the points involved in these three separate appeals are same and similar against a common impugned order, therefore, I would also decide these appeals by this single decision.

2. Brief facts of the case were that the appellants claimed to be permanent employees of the respondent bank and that‑on 29‑4‑1986 they were issued a joint charge‑ sheet alleging therein that on 26‑4‑1986, they had jointly and severally dragged Mr: B.A. Siddiqui, Zonal Head from the stair‑case to the road side and also assaulted him. The appellants claimed that they had submitted their satisfactory replies to this joint charge‑sheet on various dates, but, as they were not found satisfactory, therefore, an enquiry was ordered to be conducted by one Mr. Anisur Rehman, Vice President of Head Office, Karachi and according to them, the enquiry was finally conducted on 13‑9‑1986 in their absence resulting in that all the above named appellants were dismissed from service, vice letter, dated 28‑12‑1986, jointly issued to them and being aggrieved they claimed to have sent their grievance notices followed by their grievance petitions under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969. Further, it was also claimed by the appellants that as they were active members of the trade union and were not prepared to be dictated by the management of the bank as they were openly supporting to the rival union, therefore, they were victimized on account of annoyance of the officers of the respondent bank. The claim of the appellants further was that as they had approached to the learned. Labour Court against their dismissal from services, they were ordered to be re‑instated by the learned Labour Court, but, as the management of the bank was unhappy, therefore, it had made out yet another false case against them and they were not only charge‑sheeted, but, they were also got arrested by the Police. Further, the case of the appellants was that no proceedings of any kind were held against them on this charge‑sheet and they were not afforded any opportunity to defend themselves on this charge‑sheet, therefore, they were again dismissed from services. The claim of the appellant Shabbir Ahmad was further that though he was ill and his illness was duly certified by the approved Medical Practitioners, yet, an ex parte proceeding was also held against him.

3. The respondent bank had resisted all these petitions on the grounds that it had no concern with union activities of the appellants and as all the appellants had committed gross misconducts by assaulting the senior officer of the respondent bank, therefore, they were rightly charge‑sheeted and proceeded within a properly lawfully and fairly held domestic enquiry in which they had purposefully and deliberately did not cooperate, therefore, there was no alternate with the enquiry officer, who used to always travel from Karachi to Hyderabad and back; but, to proceed ex parte against them in which the charge of misconduct was fully established and thus, the appellants were properly and legally dismissed from their services. The respondent bank, therefore, claimed that the appellants having been rightly dismissed from their services were not entitled to maintain their grievance petitions which were liable to be dismissed.

4. All the three appellants appeared before the learned Labour Court as their own witnesses in their respective case, while, the respondent bank had produced in witness‑box their Assistant Vice President of Circle Office, Hyderabad and also Mr. Anisur Rehman the enquiry officer from Karachi, and they were all cross‑examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned common order, hence, the present three separate appeals

5. I have heard Mr. Ishaq Abbasi, the learned Advocate for the three appellants and Mr. Iqbal Habib, the learned Advocate and also Senior Vice President of the respondent bank and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the cases as well as the written arguments submitted by both the learned Advocates. At the very outset, I would observe that admittedly the plea of malice or victimization on account of trade union activities being office‑bearers, could not be established by the appellants. It is also an admitted position that the previous litigations between the appellants and the management of the respondent bank had no concern in any manner with the present proceedings, therefore, the plea of the appellants of any bias or prejudice against the management could not be proved by the appellants by any cogent or reasonable evidence. It is also an admitted position that after receipt of the replies to the said charge‑sheet by the appellants, an enquiry was ordered, so, it could not be claimed by the appellants that they were punished without adopting the prescribed procedure. It is also on record that one of the appellants, namely, Shabbir Ahmad had used very filthy abusive, un-parliamentary and objectionable language in his several letters, addressed to the respondent bank, which reflects the attitude and character of the appellants. The learned Labour Court however, was quite correct in passing remarks against the appellants on this issue. It is also an admitted position that the enquiry proceedings against all the appellants were quite fair and just as the appellants were given a number of adjournments and opportunities to appear before the said proceedings, but, on all dates, the appellants used to avoid to appear before the enquiry proceedings for one or other excuse, but, mainly on the alleged illness of all the three appellants. :low it could be possible that only for the purpose of appearance before the enquiry officer, all the three appellants had jointly fallen ill and had chosen to remain absent from those proceedings and, thereafter to take a plea that they were not afforded full opportunities to defend themselves. It is an admitted fact on record that all times, each appellant was properly communicated regarding proceedings against him and if he did not attend the proceedings, then, he should suffer for the same and should also thank themselves for the same. It is a settled principle of law that it does not help the indolent In view of these admitted facts on record and looking into the circumstances of each case of the appellant and also considering the legal aspects, I am of the view that the appellants were guilty of the misconduct and proceedings against them were just and lawful and that they were rightly dismissed from the services. In view of this, I am also of the view that the learned Labour Court had passed a correct and well reasoned impugned order and there is nothing wrong with it, so, it must be maintained. If an employee is claimed to be an office‑beaker or active member of a trade union, then, it does not mean that he is over and above the law and cannot be punished for an offence and/or a misconduct. I, therefore, find no substance in any of the contentions of Mr. Ishaq Abbasi, the learned Advocate for the appellants as he has miserably failed to prove that anything wrong had been done with the appellants. As regards the arguments of Mr. Iqbal Habib, the learned Advocate for the respondent bank, I would hold that they must be upheld.

6. For the reasons discussed by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and I would accordingly maintain the same. These three appeals are accordingly dismissed. A.E./1305/Lb.S Appeals dismissed.