1994 PLP 340 (PLC)
MIDWAY HOUSE (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI through General Manager Versus ISRARUL RAO and another
| Citation | 1994 PLP 340 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MIDWAY HOUSE (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI through General Manager Versus ISRARUL RAO and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 340 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 340 (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 340 (PLC) (MIDWAY HOUSE (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI through General Manager Versus ISRARUL RAO and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rafat Osmani for Appellants.
- Khalilur Rehman, Representative for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 17th February, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 2(xxiii)‑‑‑"Workman"‑‑‑Employee whose services were terminated on allegation of misconduct, was re‑instated by Court‑‑‑Employers contended that grievance petition against termination of employee was not competent before Court as employee was not "workman"‑‑‑Employee though enjoyed designation of incharge of swimming pool where he was deputed, but officer under whom employee was working had himself stated that employee was his subordinate and he had to report everything to him and that employee could not take any disciplinary action against any other employee‑‑‑Employers could not establish that employee was holding an office with supervisory nature‑‑‑Mere fact that employee had made certain casual suggestions regarding different problems at swimming pool or had recommended increase to certain workers attached to pool, was not enough to hold that employee was not "workman"‑‑‑Court, in circumstances, rightly found employee to be a workman and his grievance petition was rightly accepted. (b) Industrial dispute‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ Termination of service‑‑‑Re‑instatement‑‑‑Enquiry against employee whose services were terminated on ground of misconduct, was not fair or proper because Enquiry Officer, had not only taken upon himself function of a prosecutor by resorting to long‑drawn cross‑examination of employee, but had also introduced witnesses on his own accord‑‑‑Charge against employee was propped up and employee had been axed as employers were nursing grudge against him‑‑‑Employee was rightly re‑instated by Court below.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner was employed in April, 1979 as an Accounts Assistant, and on 20th of March, 1991 was working with the designation of Swimming Pool Incharge when he,was served with a charge‑sheet. It reads as under:‑‑ "It has been reported that on 20th March, 1991 at 12‑30 hours you misbehaved with your Head of Department and that you are in habit of leaving your place of duty and violating instructions given by him. The above acts constitute misconduct. You are called upon to show cause why disciplinary action should not be initiated against you. Your reply is to reach the undersigned by 12‑00 hours on 24th March, 1991 failing which it shall be deemed that you have nothing to say in your defence and the matter will be decided ex parte. Meanwhile you are suspended for four days from the date hereof."
2. He had replied but as the same was not found to be satisfactory a domestic enquiry was ordered. Imbisat Ahmed, the Enquiry Officer had examined G. M. Bari, Front Office Manager, Miss Shaheen Haroon, the Receptionist/Secretary, Shahzor Baig. Muhammad Salehoon and also the petitioner. He had reported that the charge of misconduct had been substantiated against the petitioner. And as a result thereof his services were terminated on the 29th of July, 1991.
3. The petitioner had sent the grievance notice on the 22nd of August, 1991 and not finding redressal of his grievance, had filed the petition before the Labour Court.
4. The petition was resisted inter alia on the grounds that it was not maintainable as the petitioner was not a workman.
5. The petitioner was his own witness, while G.M. Bari, Front Office Manager. Imbisat, the Enquiry Office and Muhammad Nawaz, the Personnel Manager appeared on behalf of the respondents.
6. The Labour Court found the petitioner to be a workman and the dismissal to be mala fide and therefore allowed the petition with back benefits resulting in this anneal.
7. It is true that the respondent enjoined the designation of Incharge of the Swimming Pool but G.M. Bari under whom he was working had stated that he was not aware of any increase in the pay. Muhammad Nawaz states categorically that there was no increase at all. There is also no job description forthcoming. G.M. Bari conceded that he was under his subordination and had to report everything to him. He also could not charge‑sheet or trade any disciplinary action against even the 5 persons attending to the Pool as cleaner, waiters and guard. What is more. Muhammad Nawaz has unequivocally stated that the respondent had remained a member of union, and his subscription for membership was being deducted through check off system. With this admission the burden certainly had shifted on the appellant to establish that he was holding an office with supervisory status. Nothing is discernible that way. The mere fact that he had made a casual suggestion regarding "different problems at the Swimming Pool or recommended same increment to the five workers attached to the pool is not enough. I do not see the exercise of any supervisory power by him. The designation conferred was only to make him vulnerable: He had been dismissed earlier and had been reinstated by the Labour Court which order was affirmed by this Tribunal. The matter had also been taken to the High Court but all in vain. I agree with the learned Presiding Officer that he was a workman.
8. The show‑cause notice mentions that he had misbehaved with the Head of the Department and that will be G.M. Bari. I have perused his statement at the inquiry. It appears that the respondent was standing near about the office of G.M. Bari when the latter states to have heard him arguing with Miss Shaheen. When asked as to what was the occasion for it, and why he was not at his place, the respondent had replied rudely and walked away banging the door behind him. However, Miss Shaheen Haroon is totally raticent about any argument between him and the respondent which had attracted the attention of G.M. Bari Shahzor gives a total go‑by. He states not to be aware of the happenings because it all took place behind closed doors. The statement of G.M. Bari on the other hand shows that he had expressed his resentment in loud tone to the respondent as Incharge.
9. Even the enquiry cannot be said to be fair or proper, because the Enquiry Officer had not only taken upon himself the function of a prosecutor by resorting to long‑drawn cross‑examination of the respondent but had also introduced witnesses on his own accord, and recalled G.M. Bari to enquire from him whether he had any evidence to support the charge that the respondent used to remain absent from his duty place. It was as a result of this anxious enquiry that the names of Sher Muhammad and Salehoon had surfaced, and their statements were recorded. He also admitted that he did not call Arjumand Azhar for evidence about whom there was a request also from the respondent. Demonstrably he betrays his anxiety to run down the respondent.
10. The charge was propped up on too slender a basis; the respondent had been axed, as the appellants were nursing grudge against him.
11. In the result I will uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal. H.B.T./2274/Lb.S. Appeal dismissed.