1977 PLP 480 (SCMR)

Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing ; 12th September 1977. NASIM HASAN SHAH. J.‑This is a petition seeking leave to appeal, against the order dated 2‑4‑1974, passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, rejecting the writ petition of the petitioner directed against his dismissal, from the service of Kohinoor Textile Mills, Lyallpur. The petitioner was a clerk in the Store Accounts section in the above Mills. He was appointed as a Shop Steward by the Union. He addressed a letter to the Finance Manager, with copies to certain officers, wherein serious allegations were made against the officers couched in insolvent and insubordinate language. He was accordingly issued a charge‑sheet to which he replied. His explanation was found to be unsatisfactory and he was, after being given an opportunity of being heard, dismissed from service. He moved the Junior Labour Court No. 2, Lyallpur, which dismissed his petition after discussing all the points raised by him by a detailed order. He filed an appeal against the said order which, we understand, was also dismissed by the Punjab Court No. 3, Lyallpur, but a copy of the order has not been placed on our record. The petitioner then moved a writ petition before the Lahore High Court, but that too was dismissed. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.

2. Before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the provisions of subsection (5) of section 23‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, to contend that the letter written by the petitioner being within the scope of his functions as Shop Steward ass justified. The provisions relied upon are in the following terms :‑ "23‑A(5).‑The shop steward shall act as a link between the workers and the employer, assist in the improvement of arrangements for the physical working conditions and production work in the shop, section or department for which he is elected and help workers in the settlement of their problems either connected with work or with any such individual grievance of a workman as is referred to in subsection (1) of section 25‑A." However, a perusal of the latter written by tae petitioner shows that he has criticised the officers of the Department for sitting "purposely for the sake of chattering", for sleeping in their chairs during office hours and for taking domestic work from the Company Peons etc. Tine criticism is not directed for assisting in the improvement of arrangements for the physical working conditions and production work in the shop or Department in which the petitioner was elected or to help in the settlement of their problems either connected with work or with any such individual grievances as era referred to in subsection (1) of section 25‑A. In fact the letter is scathing criticism of the officers of the Department and is not covered by the terms of subsection (5) of section 23‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The petitioner was working in the Accounts Section and it was not part or his duty to make the kind of allegations that he did. General criticism of the conduct of officers does not fall within the ambit of subsection (5) of section 23‑A of the I. R. O. No case for interference is made out his petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed: