1982 PLP 510 (PLC(CS))

Mr. Ora Jan, General Secretary of C. B. A. Union stated that the workers told him that the management had locked Murata Dept. and Reeling and Murata Dept. are being given to a contractor. He also stated that the management did .not lock any department and Reeling Dept. is running by a contractor from last '3 months He further pointed out that C. B. A. Union had not submitted any demand to the management. I also held separate discussion with workers, Ora Jan and the management for resumption of work. The above named 6 workers were advised again and again by me to get the work resumed and to discuss their grievances if any in the mill or at the Labour Directorate but they refused by saying that management first should undo contract system from Reeling Deptt., then the work will be resumed. The Factory Manager stated in the meeting that management had not locked any department nor Murata Dept. had been given to a contractor and Reeling Deptt. is being run by a contractor since last 3 months. At about 4 p. m. the striking workers of 'A' shift left the mill and workers of ' B' shift came for the work but 63 workers of 'B' shift of Doubling, Murata Winding, Reeling and Cone Winding did not go to their departments and were found sitting near canteen of the mill. They were also advised by me to follow the law and to end the strike immediately. But they refused. At about 5.45 p. m. Mr. Mirza Muhammad Kazim, Office Sec. of, Globe Textile General Labour Union met me in the office of the factory manager. The matter was discussed with him. He stated that he also wants workers to resume their work immediately and it' there is any grievance it can be solved in the joint meeting or before the Court of law. Then I called about 8 striking workers of 'B' shift and told them to resume their work immediately. Mr. Kazim also advised them to resume the work. But most of them refused to resume the work. Mr. Kazim left the mill at about 6.15 p. m., by saying that he is going on advise 'C' shift workers and 'A' shift workers not to go on strike. I also called the management, C. B. A. Union, Gen. Labour Union and Mehnatkash Union in my office on 18th July, 1979. Manage ment and Gen. Sec. of C. B. A. Union repeated their contention, Mr. Karim factory Manager also informed that out of 63 striking workers of 'B' shift, 18 workers resumed their work at about 8.30 p. m. and 25 workers of 'C' shift were on strike and from 'A' shift of 18th July, 1979 there is no strike. Gen. Sec. of Mehnatkash Union submitted his written comments opposing contract system. Mr. Kazim Mirza seated that the management had resorted to illegal lock out in order to achieve their object of giving Murata and other departments on contract system and from 18th July, 1979 the workers are working. Submitted please. (Sd.)/A. D. Ghanghro. 19‑07‑1979 A. D. (c)."

4. Mr. Ghanghro, it appears, again visited the respondent mills on 18th July, 1979. According to the report submitted by Mr. Ghanghro on l8th July, 1979, which bears the signature of the General Secretary, C.B.A., Ora Jan, he asked the workers to resume work as the Murata Department was not locked but the workers refused to resume work unless the contract system in the Reeling Department was finished and the workers are treated as the workers of the management. It further appears from the report of Mr. Ghanghro that the Reeling Department was being worked by a contractor since the past 3 months.

5. It appears that proceedings were taken only against 7 striking workmen including the 2 appellants, and the remaining about 83 striking workmen were not proceeded against. Out of the 7 workmen, against whom proceedings were taken, the 2 appellants and Mohsin Zada were dismissed from service, as already stated.

6. In the domestic enquiry held against the appellants 3 witnesses, namely, Mr. Farooq, Deputy Spinning Master, Mr. Umer, Personnel Manager, and Bashir Chowkidar were examined on behalf of the management. The enquiry officer also recorded the statement of the 2 appellants, each of whom examined the one witness in defence. Appellant Zarnoosh examined in his defence Sarwar s/o Muhammad Khan. Accor ding to him, on 17th July, 1979 some workers from the Murata Winding Department informed him that the said department had been closed and under the order of Mr. Farooq, the Doubling Section had been locked up, where upon the workers of the Reeling Department, Murata Winding and Auto Cone Department came out and the appellant, Zarnoosh, also came out and sat out till 4.00 p.m., when the Mills was closed. The witness examined in defence by Habibullah, Sultan s/o Sher Muhammad, only stated that one Punjabi had taken contract of the Murata Depart ment whereupon one Mirzada incited the workers to raise a voice against the contractor, but subsequently, when the contractor was ousted Mirzada himself took the contract. He has not spoken at all about the alleged lock‑out or strike in the respondent mills. 7. 1 have already referred to the 2 reports of Mr. Ghanghro, the Assistant Director; Labour Welfare, which indicate that there was a strike in the respondent Mills on 17th July, 1979, and that the workers refused to resume work unless the contract in the Reeling Department, which had been given some 3 months earlier, was rescinded and the workers in the departments given on contract were held to be workers of the respondent mills. Mr. Ghanghro was not examined before the enquiry officer, but his 2 reports were produced before him. Although it has been contended on behalf of the appellants that these reports were not produced before the enquiry officer, I find no substance in this contention. The true copies of these reports which appear among the papers of the domestic enquiry bear the signature of the enquiry officer with the endorsement that the original reports were seen and returned by him. Specific reference to these reports has been made in the report of the enquiry officer, copies whereof were furnished to the appellants alongwith the second show‑cause notice. No specific plea was taken by the appellant: in the reply to the second show‑cause notice, grievance notices or in the grievance petitions that these reports of the Assistant Director were not produced before the enquiry officer. Moreover, the original reports were produced by Mr. Ghanghro in his evidence before the learned Labour Court. Mr. Ghanghro is an independent witness and there is no reason to doubt his evidence as he is not expected to have any interest in either party. As regards the evidence of Mr. Mirza Muhammad Kazim, who was examined before the learned Labour Court, it may be mentioned that he had no personal knowledge of the matter and was merely informed by the workers that the‑ workers of the 'A' shift had been locked out. Even he admits that when he went to the mills, at about 5.00 p.m., he found workers of 'A' and ' B' shifts sitting before the canteen. He does not mention that he himself found any department of the respondent mills locked or that he had personal know ledge of the fact, that any of the workers of the respondent mills, particularly the 2 appellants, were not allowed to do their work or were turned out. His evidence, therefore, is of little assistance to the 2 appellants.

8. Concrete support to the reports of Mr. Ghanghro is provided by the testimony of Mr. Muhammad Umar and Mr. Farooq, who were examined before enquiry officer to the effect that workers of the Reeling, Doubling. Auto Cone and Murata Winding Departments had illegally struck work and that the 2 appellants had not only participated in the strike but had incited the other workmen to do so. They are supported by Chowkidar Bashir. I have carefully examined the evidence in the case and am satisfied that there was adequate material bout before the enquiry officer and the learned Labour. Court to establish that the 2 appellants had not only taken part in an illegal strike but had also instigated the other workers to go on strike. As already mentioned, the appellants were working in the Weaving Department. It is not even the case of the appellants that the said department was locked. As such, the action of the 2 appellants in striking work indisputably constitute misconduct. Their misconduct assumes more serious proportions in view of the fact that they had incited others to strike work.

9. As regards the second ground on which Mr. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi assailed the findings of the learned Labour Court, I have already discussed the evidence with regard to the production of the reports of Mr. Ghanghro before the enquiry officer and have held that these reports were produced before him. From the mere fact that the enquiry officer himself was not examined no inference can be drawn that these reports were not produced before him, particularly when no such allegation was made either in the reply to the second show‑cause notice or the grievance notice given by the appellants. It is also not a requirement of law that copies of every document produced before the enquiry officer should be furnished to the workman who are being processed against. Further more, there is nothing to indicate that any application or request was made to the enquiry officer that copies of these reports should be furnished to the appellants. I am, therefore, of opinion that the enquiry proceed ings do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality.

10. For the reasons discussed by the above, I would agree with the findings of the learned Labour Court that the misconduct of the 2 appellants was duly established in a domestic enquiry which appears to have been fairly and impartially conducted. The evidence led before the learned Labour Court also clearly established the misconduct of the 2 appellants. I would accordingly dismiss the 2 appeals.