1976 PLP 288 (PLC)

Scope-Labour Court not to sit in appeal on conclusions of domestic enquiry when no suggestion of any mala fide and enquiry was fair and legal. 1970 P L C 84 rel. A. A. Shareef for the Management. M. L. Shahani for Respondent. These are two cross appeals against the Order dated 14th November 1975, passed by Junior Labour Court No. 4, by which that Court had re-instated the respondent in service but minor punishment for misconduct by withholding one increment was awarded to her. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent who was employed as an Air-Hostess in Pakistan International Airlines Corporation, had left Karachi base for Rawalpindi without any intimation or any prior permission from the appellant Management, and stayed away from work for about five days. While she was still away in Rawalpindi, a message was passed on, through her sister that the respondent was busy with her family affairs and also that she had met with an accident needing care and attendance at home and accordingly an alternative arrangement was made; her sister having volunteered to operate the flights to New York in place of the respondent. She also did not intimate the appellant-Corporation of her where abouts at Rawalpindi. It however, turned out later that the respondent remained all the while away from Karachi base on sheer pretext of illness, contrary to the appellant-Corporation's Rules and Regulations of Service, which necessitated an action being taken in the matter. She was therefore, charge-sheeted for leaving base Station without any permission, failure to report at Medical Centre at Rawalpindi, failure to notify her where abouts and unauthorised absence from 22nd to 26th of August 1974; and following a properly con ducted domestic enquiry and second show-cause notice, she was eventually dismissed from service from 16th May 1975. The Junior Labour Court however, re-instated her in service mainly on the ground that leaving the base without permission not being an act of misconduct as enumerated in Standing Order 15 (3), minor punishment of withholding one increment l3 as beer, considered a proper punishment for it. I have heard the counsel for the parties. I have also gone through the record and evidence to be able to examine the respective positions taken by the parties. The learned counsel for the respondent worker has argued that the charge of leaving the base without permission does not constitute an act of misconduct within the meaning of section 15 of West Pakistan Industrial & Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968. An act of misconduct or indiscipline has to be viewed in relation to the duties that ale performed acid quite understandably the job assignment of an Air Hostess, makes her presence at the base necessary for the proper conduct of the operation of flights and so it is a necessary part of her duties to be vigilant in keeping constant touch, to ensure that there is nothing unsettling the operation of flights as scheduled. In the case of Air-flights any neglect or dereliction of duty may well amount to be more devastating than elsewhere and so there is more emphasis laid on this aspect of an Air-Hostess's duty as shown in the Corporation's Rules of Service. But any such Regulation in service has to be read in conjunction with the statutory provisions defined for it. It is however, appropriate to mention here that acts and omissions constituting misconduct as enumerated in section 15 of Standing Orders Ordinance are only illustrative and not exhaustive, and an improper conduce also constitutes a misconduct. Reliance is placed on 1970 P L C 84 and Supreme Court's Appeal No. 52 of 1974 in Karachi Rolling Flour Mills which are hereby cited in support of this contention. Even otherwise, under Standing Order 15 (3) (a) of West Pakistan Standing Orders Ordnance 1968, wilful insubordination or disobedience to any lawful and reasonable order of superiors is an act of misconduct and the respondent Air-Hostess leaving Karachi, base without permission or any intimation is guilty of violation of the Rules of Corporation. It was therefore, clearly well within the means of the respondent to have informed the appellants that in circumstances described to her she was obliged to leave Karachi base which for incomprehensive reasons, she failed to do so, with the result that all flight operations had to be readjusted for days on end. It is a hard case to believe that incidents one after another happened which could have prevented her from notifying the authorities for leaving Karachi base, and also as to her whereabouts. Even so, a careful analysis shows that the story put forward is not consistent with all the facts and circumstances that have been brought on record. Initially it was reported that the respondent left Karachi on receiving information of her mother's illness, whereas according to her sister, she i.e. her sister undertook the mutual charge of flights to New York on behalf of the respondent for settling family matters, while Miss Latifa Datu sent the telex message informing that the respondent had met with an accident and needed care, although there was no medical certificate produced to that effect. All these different versions render the respondent's stand dubitable. The fact that the respondent had stayed at Hotel Intercontinental however. falsifies her own case as it appears that she was on a frolic of her own. There was therefore, no justification for the respondent to leave the things in the air when she could be accessible to the authorities concerned, and could have easily informed the authorities about leaving the Karachi base and notifying of her whereabouts. In the state of the circumstances the appellants were justified in charge-sheeting her on the said acts. The facts on the record also show that the domestic enquiry was properly conducted in which she had fully participated, and an opportunity was also given to her to clarify her position both in second show-cause notice and personal hearing. These were the facts which could only be enquired by the Enquiry Officer and the Labour Court is not a Court of Appeal to interfere when the domestic enquiry conducted, was fair and legal. From the evidences" on record it appears that there was no mule fide in the action taken by the Management. I, accordingly set aside the Order of the Junior Labour Court and accept the appeal of the Management; while cross appeal of the Air 4 Hostess Miss Bette Mendes is dismissed.