1981 PLP 175 (PLC)

‑‑ S. O. 15 (3) (a)‑Wilful disobedience‑Workers directed by standing directions not to use any gate except one allowed for entry and exit‑Directions placed on Notice Board of establishment Evidence indicating that workers were aware of such directions and complied with same‑Contention before Labour Court that such circular directive had not been specifically brought to notice of accused, in circumstances, held, not sustainable‑Non‑compliance held, amounted to wilful disobedience. Shamsuz Zaman for Appellant. S. P. Lodhi for Respondent. Date of hearing : 10th March, 1980. The appellant, who was employed as an Assistant Storekeeper in the appellant establishment, was dismissed from service with effect from 14th April 1977 on the charge of wilful disobedience of orders in that he tried to pass through K. P. T. gate at West Wharf in contravention of the respondents 'establishments circular, dated 1st January, 1977, prohibit ing use by the employees of the appellant‑establishment of any other K. P. T. gate except Gate No.

37. It was specifically stated in the said circular that the management would take severe action against persons found in breach of this circular. The respondent challenged his 'dismis sal order before the learned labour Court which has taken the view that as the circular in question was not specifically brought to the notice of the respondent he cannot be said to have committed an act of wilful insubordination. It according; held the orders of dismissal of the respon dent as unlawful and directed the appellant to reinstate him in service. The Labour Court, however, did not allow back benefits to the respondent and only allowed him back wages for the period of six months as it had held that the respondent had not come to the Court with clean hands and was guilty of making false statements.

2. I have hard Mr. Shamsuz Zaman, the learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. S. P. Lodhi, who appeared for the respondent. The learned Labour Court has exhaustively dealt with the issue whether a domestic enquiry was held against the respondent and has come to the conclusion that such enquiry was not only held but it was fair and proper. The finding on this issue rests on the tangible evidence of Sarwar Kamal Siddiqui, the Industrial Relations Officer of the appellant establish ment, who produced the record of the domestic enquiry each page whereof has been signed by the respondent. Corroboration to the testimony of witness Sarwar Kamal Siddiqui is provided by the statement of res pondent's witness, Riaz Khan who admitted that he was examined by the respondent in the enquiry proceedings, In view of this strong evidence, it was not challenged before this Tribunal that no enquiry was held against the respondent.

3. The only issue which was argued before me was whether the respondent had committed wilful insubordination. It was contended by Mr. Shamsuz Zaman that the appellant establishment had issued the circular, dated 1st January, 1977, wherein they have prohibited upon pain of severe action against the defaulter, the use of any other K. P. T gate except Gate No.

37. It is an admitted position that on the night of 16th and 17th February, 1977, at about 4‑30 a m., the respondent tried to pass through K.P.T. gate at West Wharf where he was stopped and two thanas of cloth were recovered from the vehicle in which he was trying to pass from the prohibited gate. Mr. S. P. Lodhi, on behalf of the respondent sub mitted that it had not been established that the circular in question was brought to the notice of the respondent. He further submitted that in the circumstances in which the respondent attempted to pass through the West Wharf gate he cannot be considered to be guilty of wilful insubordination Now as regards the first contention of Mr. Lodhi, which, it may be pointed out, found favour with the learned Laboar Court, it may be stated that this circular was fixed on the Notice Board of the appellant establishment, as testified by the appellant s Labour Welfare Officer, Mr. Sarwar Kamal Siddiqui. This fact has not been controverted by the respondent. It may be pointed out that every establishment is required to have a Notice Board on which not only the texts on the Standing Order; ate to be prominently displayed but also the period of ail classes of workmen in each shift, the days to be observed as holidays and pay days and the rates payable to all classes of workman, as provided under the Standing Officer. As such, the Notice Board in the establishment is a proper place for displaying Circulars containing the orders of the establishment. Apart from the fact that the said circular was displayed on the Notice Board of the appellant/ establishment, there is evidence to show that the contents of the circular were within the knowledge of every worker, including the respondent. It was admitted by the respondent's witness, Riaz Khan, that all the workers entered the company from Gate No. 37 which is also used for exit. He further admitted that the employees are not allowed to use other K. P. T. Gates for the purpose of entry or exit. Even the respondent himself in the enquiry proceedings admitted that he was aware of the fact that the employees of the appellants establishment were prohibited from using any other K. P. T. Gate. It may further be pointed out that neither in his reply to the show‑cause notice of 1st March 1977, nor the charge‑sheet, dated 9th March, 1977, has the respondent taken the plea that he was not aware of the circular prohibiting the use of the K. P. T. gate other than Gate No.

37. The plea raised by him was that he used the prohibited gate because he was suffering from fever and pain in the abdomen. Assuming that this position was correct it did no entitle the respondent to disregard the circular of the appellant establishment which clearly warned that severe action would be taken against the defaulters. Moreover there is no evidence in support of respondent's contention that he was so ill that it was necessary to use the prohibited gate. An indication of why the prohibited gate was used appears from the fact that two thans of cloth were recovered from the vehicle in which the respondent was trying to pass through the prohibited gate. I am, therefore, satisfied that the respondent committed wilful disobedience of the lawful orders of his employer. His action, thus, clearly falls under sub‑clause (3) (a) of Standing Order 15.

4. The upshot of the above discussion is that I would set aside the impugned order of the learned Labour Court and allow the appeal. Appeal allowed.