1997 PLP 377 (PLC)

Ashraf Hussain Rizvi for Appellant. Aftab Hassan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 8th May, 1996. This appeal is directed against the order of the VIth Sindh Labour Court, Hyderabad dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant for reinstatement.

2. The appellant was a permanent workman in Indus Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and performing the duties of a winder. He was dismissed from service on 12‑6‑1989 but he was reinstated by an order of the Labour Court dated 9‑2‑1991. The Indus company complied with the orders of the Labour Court and advised him to attend the mills daily and to collect his wages but he was not asked to do the duties as winder on the ground that the mill had already engaged full strength of the workers and they were all working. When one of the workers namely Auto Cone Winder remained absent the appellant was directed to work in his place but the appellant declined to do his duties and disobeyed the orders of the management. He was, therefore, again given a show‑cause notice on 8‑8‑1991. The enquiry was ordered against him but although he associated himself with the enquiry he did not cooperate by signing the papers and making his statement. His objection was that he would perform the duties of a winder but not that of Auto Cone Winder. Both were unskilled workers. The appellant approached the N.I.R.C. and they also came to the conclusion that he could not have refused to work as Auto Cone Winder as long as he was paid the wages of that post. Under the circumstances the appellant was again dismissed from service. He again filed his grievance petition but this time the Labour Court did not come to his rescue. The Labour Court found that the appellant was not willing to perform his duties as Auto Cone Winder on which post he was originally appointed on his application and for which post he was being paid the wages.

3. Mr. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi has argued on behalf of the appellant that he was charge‑sheeted for remaining absent for more than 10 days but the Labour Court found him guilty of not performing his duties as Auto Cone Winder. The facts, however, showed that when he was asked to work in place of the Auto Cone Winder, who had proceeded on leave, he declined to obey the orders and absented him from work, therefore, the cause of absence was his unwillingness to work as Auto Cone Winder. The appellant on account of his temperament has not been found to be a fit person for reinstatement after his second dismissal. The alleged legal defects in the domestic enquiry, do not vitiate the result of enquiry and I can see no reason to interfere with the decision of the Labour Court.

4. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./133/Lb.S????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeal dismissed.