1988 PLP 741 (PLC(CS))

M.L. Shahani for Appellant. Muhammad Humayoon for Respondent. Date of hearing: 16th March, 1988. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 20‑11‑1985, passed by the Sind Labour Court No.V at Karachi, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case were that the appellant claimed to be a permanent workman in the respondent establishment and on 15‑6‑1977, some incidents had taken place in the premises of the factory situated at Lyari, Karachi against transfers of some workers from Lyari factory to the factory, situated at Jamshoro Hyderabad, and so the appellant was alleged to have been the leader of the said incidents and was alleged that he had incited the workers to raise ugly slogans against the management thus amounted to riotous and disorderly behaviour during the working hours inside the factory. Therefore, on this allegation, the appellant claimed to have been issued a charge‑sheet on 16‑6‑1977 followed by an enquiry resulting in his dismissal from service on 9‑8‑1977. The appellant claimed that against this dismissal, he filed a grievance petition before the learned Labour Court, who vide order, had allowed tile same, but, in appeal before this Tribunal, the same was set aside with the direction to the respondent establishment to hold fresh enquiry against the appellant. The appellant claimed that in pursuance of this order of this Tribunal, dated 17‑8‑1980, the respondent had conducted fresh enquiry through one Feroz Ahmad and in such an unfair and biased enquiry, he was again found guilty of the misconduct resulting in his again dismissal from service on 19‑10‑1980. The appellant further claimed that being aggrieved, he again approached the learned Labour Court, who, vide order, dated 18‑4‑1982 had again directed his re‑instatement in service holding the fresh enquiry as partial,. thus, the company had again preferred an appeal before this Tribunal who, after setting aside the said impugned order, had again directed a fresh enquiry, therefore, this time, one Ashraf Jaliawala was appointed as enquiry officer who had conducted the domestic enquiry again finding the appellant guilty of the misconduct, so, being aggrieved, the appellant claimed to have filed the present grievance petition, before the learned Labour Court, who had passed the impugned order.

3. The respondent establishment had resisted the petition on the ground that as the appellant, Bashir Ahmad was found guilty of the gross misconduct in a lawfully, fairly, impartially and reasonably held domestic enquiry; therefore, he was dismissed from service so he could not maintain his grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969. It was also claimed by the respondent establishment that his dismissal was not at all connected with any victimization on account of his alleged trade union activities. Further, it was claimed by the respondent establishment that the enquiry officer was not under the command of the establishment nor he was dictated but on the other hand, he had conducted a fair enquiry against the appellant in which he had fully participated. Hence, the respondent claimed that the grievance petition of the appellant was liable to be dismissed.

4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits‑in‑evidence and they were duly cross‑examined. Thereafter the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order.

5. I have heard Mr. M.L. Shahani, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Muhammad Humayoon, the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent establishment and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case as well as the written arguments filed by both the parties. At the very outset, I would observe here that the enquiry against the appellant was correctly and properly held at Hyderabad where he was also transferred for the reasons of having been closed the factory at Lyari and so having fully participated in the domestic enquiry, it was not proper for the appellant to say that neither the enquiry was fair nor he was properly removed from the service. Further, it is also an admitted position on record that the appellant was also provided assistance in the domestic enquiry to ensure fair and impartial enquiry against him. Thus, the principles of natural justice were fully adhered to. It is also proved from the record that all the prosecution witnesses against the appellant had supported each other as far as the charge of the misconduct was concerned and the appellant had miserably failed to shake any of the evidence of the prosecution side. On perusal of the depositions of the defence witnesses before the enquiry officer, I find that they are contradictory to each other and did not support the appellant that he was neither involved in the alleged incidents nor he had. committed any misconduct. Further, the witnesses examined before the learned Labour Court had fully supported the case of the respondent management. Mr. Muhammad Humayoon, the learned Advocate for the respondent establishment has very vehemently and correctly argued that it has been established beyond any shadow of doubt that the appellant had committed the misconduct as per charge‑sheet, issued against him on 16‑6‑1977 which was duly proved in an enquiry as had been held quite in accordance with the settled procedure and the legal requirements. I have also perused the entire proceedings and find much force in the contentions of Mr. Muhammad Humayoon, the learned Advocate for the respondent establishment. In support of his pleadings, Mr. Muhammad Humayoon, the learned Advocate for the appellant establishment has once again very rightly placed his reliance on the cases reported in 1974 P L C at page 272; 1985 PLC 991 and 1981 P L C at page

762. I have carefully examined the contents of these authorities and so I would hold that the facts, circumstances and the legal aspects of the present case are quite same and similar to the facts etc. of the reported cases, therefore. I would adopt the same views and would hold that the appellant has no case and the learned Labour Court has passed a very correct impugned order which cannot be interfered.

6. On the other hand, though Mr. M.L. Shahani, the learned Advocate for the appellant has argued his case quite at length, yet, I find that he has no case in support of his contentions. He has reiterated all those points which had already been discussed before the learned Labour Court and thereafter mentioned in the impugned order, therefore, I would not repeat the same Mr. M.L. Shahani, the learned Advocate for the appellant has not placed any authority of the superior Court in support of his any of the pleadings to rebut the contentions of the respondent management. I would, therefore, hold that he has no case made out against the management.

7. For the reasons discussed by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. Tile present appeal is, therefore, dismissed. A. E. /1223/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.