1997 PLP 529 (PLC)

2. In January, 1993 a dispute had arisen between the workers Union and the management in respect of filling up the promotion posts in the mills. The union wanted that the candidates already working and recommended by them should alone be promoted. The management was of the view that they should be left free to appoint candidates even from outside considered suitable for the jobs.

3. On 8‑3‑1993 at about 2.15 p.m. the Technical Officers were holding a meeting in the office of the Technical Adviser in connection with the question of promotions. The members of the Workers Union suspecting that they were taking a decision against the stand of the union forcibly entered the office, removed the Technical Officers by pulling them and took them to the office of the General Manager. They were all locked‑up in the office of the General Manager, assaulted and manhandled. They even snatched the Rifle of the Security Guard and tried to fire it but could not do so due to the Rifle being unloaded or due to non‑removal of the safety catch. The General Manager and these officers remained wrongfully confined till they were rescued at about 6‑00 p.m. by the District Administration. An F.I.R. was lodged with the police and a complaint was also filed with the Deputy Commissioner, Badin and Superintendent of Police with a copy to S.D.M., Badin. The names of the appellants were mentioned in the F.I.R. while the Police Investigation remained pending. These workers were served with the charge‑sheet on 23‑3‑1993. They were charged with misconduct amounting to disorderly behaviour under Order 15 of the Standing Orders Ordinance. An Officer of the sister concern was appointed as an Enquiry Officer and five witnesses were examined on behalf of the management. No defence evidence was offered by the respondent. The workers were found guilty of misconduct and they were ordered to be dismissed from service. They preferred grievance petition before the Labour Court. The Labour Court found some technical defects in the procedure and for that reason directed reinstatement of the respondents with back benefits. The Bawany Sugar Mills have accordingly appealed.

4. It has been argued by Mr. Farooq A. Ghani, Advocate for the appellants that the defects in the enquiry proceedings are not material and there is no justification for reinstatement: of these workers on that account. For instance it is said that the report of the enquiry proceedings with the second show‑cause notice was not served on the workers. The proceedings were, therefore, bad. That copy of the complaint forming the basis of the charge‑sheet had not been supplied to the accused. Mr. Faruq A. Ghani has referred to the decision in Lucky Silk Mills v. Khaliqur Rehman (1979 PLC 5). It was held in that case by Justice Ghulam Rasool Shaikh, Appellate Tribunal that: "There is no force in this contention in view of the authority of the Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Shamim v. M/s. Pakistan Tobacco. Company, Karachi and another reported in 1975 Supreme Court Monthly Review 46."

5. It was held by Waheeduddin Ahmed, J. in that case that: ??????????? "The contentions raised before us have no force. The first contention that a copy of the enquiry report should have been sent alongwith the show‑cause notice is not supported by any Standing Order. The Standing Order No. 15(4) only requires that no order of dismissal shall be made unless the workman concerned is informed in writing of the alleged misconduct. In the present case he was given an opportunity to explain the allegations made against him." 6.In PLD 1981 SC 235 Iftikhar Ahmed v. Abdul Razzak and 6 others, it was observed by the Supreme Court as under:‑‑ "I would hold that from the provision, as is worded, neither the requirement of the second show‑cause notice nor of supplying a copy of the report can be spelled out. The High Court erroneously held so on the impression that this requirement is a part and parcel of the rules of natural justice. The discussion on this point would cover the common ground in both the appeals; and as the appeals succeed on both these grounds. It is not necessary to examine additional ground (c). In regard to ground (d), I would uphold the conclusion of the Junior Labour Court No. V, Karachi, as the application under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance was per se barred by limitation. In consequence thereof, the orders of dismissal of the concerned respondents are upheld in both the appeals, the impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the appeals are allowed but with no order as to costs. "

7. In the more recent case it was held by the Supreme Court (1988 SCMR 1352) that "enquiry report and second show‑cause notice was not necessary in every case of dismissal. The essential condition being that it should have caused prejudice to the accused in his defence".

8. In the present case the incident of assault on the officers of the Bawany Sugar Mills and their wrongful confinement for more than three hours had brought the officers of the administration on the scene who came to the rescue of the officers. This incident, therefore, no longer remained secret and every one came to know about it in a small place like Talhar. A report was lodged with the police and the Magistracy and the Police had supported the investigation. It cannot, therefore, be said that the workers were still ignorant of the complaint against them in spite of the charge‑sheet containing these facts having been served on each of them. No prejudice has therefore been caused to the workers so as to vitiate the enquiry by non?-service of the second show‑cause notice and the enquiry report.

9. The workers had apparently tried to interfere in the management and claimed powers of promotion of the workers instead of leaving it to the management. The workers thus tried to take the law in their own hands anti coerced the management by violent acts of indiscipline exceeding limits of decency and good conduct. They have acted in the manner subversive of discipline and their acts clearly amount to grave misconduct as defined in the Standing Order 15(3)(h). Such acts if allowed against the management are bound to disrupt the smooth working of the factory and would affect the production and economy of this country. The Labour class must show proper respect to the management and behave in a respectfully manner. Their slightest misbehaviour in this regard is a sufficient cause for their dismissal from service of the factory concerned. The learned Labour Court should have assessed the evidence and considered the broad facts of the case instead of giving importance to formal technicalities in the procedure of the domestic enquiry.

10. The order of the Labour Court is accordingly set aside and the dismissal of the accused workers is maintained. These appeals of the Bawany Sugar Mills are accordingly allowed. H.B.T./190/Lb.S ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeals allowed.