1984 PLP 987 (PLC(CS))

Chan Pir Shah v. Congothene Chemicals Industries 1981 P L C 984 ; Sher Muhammad v. Sher Ali Khan P L D 1962 Lah. 172 and Rehmat Elahi v. Government of West Pakistan P L D 1955 Lah. 112 ref. 1979 P L C 100 and P L J 1979 Tr. C (Labour) 55 ref. Malik Muhammad Asghar for Appellant. Javed Altaf for Respondent. Date of hearing : 2nd September, 1981. This is an appeal brought by Khalid Hussain, appellant, against the decision, dated 31st July, 1977 of the learned Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, whereby his petition given under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for his reinstatement was dismissed. The appel lant was a Fitter in the respondent‑Company. On 25th September, 1975 he was found without uniform and badge. Thereupon, the Manager enquired from him why he was not wearing the uniform and the badge The appellant shouted after placing his tools on the table "do you require work or uniform" and manhandled the Manager. The persons present in the factory intervened. The appellant was charge‑sheeted and an enquiry, was held against him, in which he was found guilty of only one charge of misconduct. The Enquiry Officer did not record his findings. on the other charge which was that the appellant was without uniform and badge. After all the formalities were observed, the appellant was dismissed.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that whatever the appellant had said was covered by Standing Order 15 (1) (ii) (a) and (b) and not by Standing Order 12 (3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. 1 cannot agree with the learned counsel. Standing Order 13 (3) (a) is to the effect "wilful insubordination or disobedience, whether alone or in combination with others, to any lawful and reasonable order of a superior. Standing Order 15 (3) (h) reads as under : ‑ "riotous or disorderly behaviour during working hours at the establishment or any act subversive of discipline." An employee who considers himself as subordinate would not speak to his boss in the tone and language so the appellant did. Saying at the top of the voice "do you require work or uniform ; you are a fauji" may not amount to insubordination. However, clause (h) beyond any shadow of doubt covers the case. What the appellant said amounts to disorderly behaviour as well as an act subversive of discipline. If he had uttered these words not during working hours when no other subordinate was present in the factory, it would not have amounted to an act subversive of discipline, but since during working hours when other workers were also present, the words uttered by the appellant did amount to subversion of discipline.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that there were two charges against the appellant, but the Enquiry Officer did not record any finding and did not find the appellant guilty of the first charge, which was to the effect that he was not wearing the uniform, but found him guilty in respect of the other charge, which, according to him, amounted to misconduct and as the appellant was punished for both the charges, the order of dismissal stands vitiated. He relied upon 1979 P L C 100 and P L J 1979 Tr. C. (Labour)

55. In the first mentioned ruling, there were three charges, one was that the receipt of wages and bonus was refused; the second was that the transfer order was not complied with and the third was of absence from duty, it was held that non‑receipt of wages and bonus did not amount to misconduct ; that since the transfer order was found to be unjustified, the refusal to obey it did not amount to misconduct. However, as regards the third charge it was observed that it was a misconduct and had been proved. There was a 4th charge also and that was that the work and conduct was unsatisfactory. It was observed that this charge was vague as no instances were given. Since the workman had been punished on all the four charges, whereas only one charge had been proved for dismissing him, it was held that the entire order of dismissal stood vitiated. Re liance was placed upon Chan Pir Shah v. Congthene Chemicals Industries (1981 P L C 984), Sher Muhammad v. Sher Ali Khan (P L D 1962 Lah. 172) and Rehmat flahi v. Government of West Pakistan (P L D 1955 Lah. 112). 1 do not find any reason for not relying upon the above authorities. In the present case as mentioned above, there were two charges. No finding was recorded on the first charge but the punish in authority awarded punishment on both the charges. This is noteworthy that the first charge did not amount to misconduct. So even if the Enquiry Officer had recorded his opinion on the first charge and had found the appellant guilty, punishment of dismissal could not have been awarded. The result is that the order by which the appellant has been punished stands vitiated and 1, accepting the appeal, re‑instate the appellant. As the appellant has won the case on technical ground, he shall not be entitled to back benefits. A. E. Appeal accepted.