1994 PLP 106 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD HANIF Versus SINDH LABOUR COURT NO. V, KARACHI and another
| Citation | 1994 PLP 106 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HANIF Versus SINDH LABOUR COURT NO. V, KARACHI and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 106 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 106 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 106 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD HANIF Versus SINDH LABOUR COURT NO. V, KARACHI and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Salim Khan for Appellant.
- Muhammad Rehan Aqeel for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 27th September, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑ Dismissal from service‑‑‑Employee was dismissed from service on ground of misconduct after holding enquiry against him‑‑‑Domestic enquiry against employee was more than fair and he was given assistance of a co‑worker and hearing was patient‑‑‑Allegations against employee on basis of which he was dismissed from service were based on documentary evidence which was not disputed at any stage and conduct as displayed by employee all along was unworthy of a person in service‑‑‑Enquiry was held against employee in a congenial atmosphere and there was not the faintest element of prejudice in proceedings which were fair‑‑‑Enquiry report was very detailed and well discussed and no fault could be found with its conclusions‑‑‑Order of dismissal of employee was not open to any exception, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
4. On the 23rd of January, 1989, the respondents had issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be proceeded against for misconduct. A reply followed in which it was said that the transfer order was illegal and based on mala fides. It went on to say that "if any illegal disciplinary action is taken against me by you, the same will be forwarded to the proper Court of Law at your costs, risks and consequences".
5. Once the interim injunction had been vacated the respondents took up the proceedings ending in his dismissal on 26‑10‑1989.
6. The petitioner after serving the grievance notice filed the petition before the Labour Court.
7. The petitioner was his own witness and S.M. Azam, the Area Service Manager was the witness on behalf of the respondents. They had also filed the affidavit of Muhammad Abdullah, the Enquiry Officer, but as in between he had left the service, he was not produced for cross‑examination. The affidavit, therefore, has got to be excluded.
8. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the dismissal, in the circumstances of the case, was eminently justified and, therefore, dismissed his petition.
9. The record shows that the appellant had been well‑looked after by the respondents earning some increments. Matters took a different turn with his posting outside Karachi. At the end of the earlier round of correspondence he had proceeded on leave and when the same was coming to an end he had made a query from the respondents by his letter, dated 22‑12‑1988 as to whether he should resume at Karachi or report at Naushera. He was informed that he will proceed to Naushera and may draw an advance of Rs:1,200 for traveling expenses.
10. It was, thereafter, that the appellant decided to act. There was a complaint to the Directorate of Labour. He had filed a suit before a Civil Judge, a Contempt Application before the Labour Court and had complained even to the Ministers as admitted by him in his cross‑examination. The domestic enquiry was taken, up once the interim injunction was vacated, ending in his dismissal.
11. There can be no manner of doubt that the defiance of authority and insolence as to be found here will constitute misconduct of the grossest nature.
12. Transfer is an ordinary incidence of any service, private or Government. He was apprised of it in his letter of appointment. The order could not, be resisted or defied because it caused certain inconveniences. He could have made representations verbal and even in writing, or proceeded on leave for a while if there were certain compelling circumstances, but to 'resist the move on the ground of illegality and mala fides for which there is hardly any justification, has only to be condemned.
13. The domestic enquiry was more than fair. He was given the assistance of a co‑worker/representative and the hearing was patient. The record extends to hundreds of pages, every page whereof is duly signed by him. It, however, appears that the Enquiry Officer had taken the assistance of S.M. Azam for dictating some of the parts of the statements. The record shows that it was with the consent of the appellant. Otherwise too the allegations against the appellant are based on documentary evidence which are not disputed and were never disputed at any stage. So, nothing could be added to it by anybody at the stage of the recording of the statements.
14. Mr. Rehan Aqeel appearing for the respondent stated that the Enquiry Officer had entrusted the work to Mr. Azam because he was not well up in `Urdu'. That is hardly an excuse. He could record it in English if he so wanted. This solecism apart, there is not the faintest element of prejudice in the proceedings which were fair and held in a congenial atmosphere. The report is very detailed and well‑discussed and no fault can be found with its conclusions.
15. The conduct as displayed by the appellant all along was unworthy of a person in service.
16. Under the circumstances the order of dismissal and the finding of the Labour Court are not open to any exception. I will, therefore, affirm the order and dismiss the appeal. H.B.T./2241/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.