1986 PLP 325 (PLC)

‑‑‑ Domestic enquiry‑‑Accused charged for misconduct of disorderly behaviour for exchange of abuses with another co‑worker in factory premises‑‑Exchange of abuses resulting out of demand made by accused for due subscription towards common litigation‑‑Both charged for misconduct and Enquiry Officer holding both guilty of disorderly behaviour‑‑No findings as to who started abuses and who was responsible for alleged disorderly behaviour‑‑Management dismissing accused only without any action against co‑worker‑‑Labour Court, in circumstances, held, rightly re‑instated accused with back benefits‑‑Industrial Relations ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss.25‑A & 38(3). Kanwar Shamim Akhtar for Appellant. Abdul Majid Khan for Respondent. Date of decision: 23rd February, 1982. This appeal is directed against the decision, dated 22nd March, 1979, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad, thereby the grievance petition of the respondent for her re‑instatement was accepted with back benefits.

2. The brief facts are that the respondent who was employed as worker in Gola Khata had instituted a suit on behalf and for the benefit of female co‑workers since certain concessions had not been allowed by the management. She asked Mat. Bashiran for the payment of subscription for expenses of the litigation and upon this abuses were exchanged between the two. On account of this quarrel the management charge‑sheeted both the ladies, held inquiry but did not take action against Mat. Bashiran Bibi and dismissed the respondent. Mst. Hashmat Bibi challenged the order of dismissal before the learned lower Court in her grievance petition. The Inquiry Officer found both the ladies guilty of disorderly behaviour and acts subversive of discipline l during working hours.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the respondent was guilty of misconduct inasmuch as she had exchanged abuses. In the inquiry it was to be found who out of the two ladies was responsible for the incident. It was to be seen who took the initiative and opened abuses. Since in the inquiry it could not be ascertained who had initiated quarrel the management should not have taken action against either of the ladies. If Mst. Bashiran Bibi had for first of all started abusing the respondent naturally respondent could not remain silent and was likely to treat Bashiran Bibi with the same coin. Even if Mst. Hashmat had in retaliation of abuses had started beating Bashiran Bibi it would have been quite natural but she replied to the abuses in abuses and thus, cannot be said to be responsible for indiscipline. The demand of subscription made by Mst. Hashmat Bibi was not highly objectionable because she demanded subscription to meet the expenses of litigation. Admittedly, Mat. Bashiran Bibi could also be benefited by the litigation if it was to remain successful. It, therefore, cannot be said that the respondent was not justified in demanding subscription and that she was responsible for the incident. She, therefore, was rightly re‑instated by the lower Court with back benefits. I do not find any force in the argument of the learned counsel that she was rightly dismissed. The appeal is dismissed. M.Y.H. Appeal dismissed.