1977 PLP 216 (PLC)

Latif Jalili for Appellant. Masood Mirza for Respondent. Date of hearing: 29th November 1976. DECISION This appeal bas been filed against the order of the Labour Court dismiss. ing the application made under section 25‑A, I. R. O.

2. The appellant was in the service of the respondent. He was working as a Liftman. On 6th November, 1974 at about 4.00 p. m. he left the duty showing that the lift machine was not working and he was going to bring Mr. Iqbal who was a lift mechanic. Soon after Mr. Iqbal himself appeared and on examination he found the machine working properly. Consequently, the appellant was charge sheeted, on 6th November, 1974. He tendered an apology and, therefore, he was warned and no further action was taken against him. He also gave an undertaking that in future he would not misbehave. However, on 23rd March, 1975 he again swicthed off the lift on the pretext that it was out of order. The lift was examined and it was found to be in working order. Consequently, he was again charge- sheeted on 27th, March, 1975. He sent the reply which was found un satisfactory and an inquiry was ordered.

3. On 2nd April, 1975 an inquiry was resumed and it was postponed to 8th April, 1975. The appellant appeared and he wanted the assistance of Mr. Bukhari, General Secretary of the Union but Mr. Bukhad being an outsider could not be permitted. Consequently, the appellant boycotted the inquiry and, left. Ex parte inquiry was held. The appellant was found guilty and therefore, a second show‑cause notice was sent to the appellant by a letter dated 12th April, 1975. The appellant sent the reply dated 15th April, 1975 which was found unsatisfactory and, thereforb, the appellant was dismissed from service on 17th April, 1975. After serving the grievance notice the appellant approached the Labour Court.

4. The application was resisted and it was pleaded that the appellant had committed an act of misconduct and, therefore, after due inquiry he was found guilty and the dismissal order was passed.

5. The Labour Court on the assessment of the evidence dismissed the application. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal had been filed.

6. The first ground taken before me is that the allegations of misconduct levelled against the appellant constituted the offence under Standing Order 15 (1) (ii) (c) for making false and misleading statements and, therefore, he could not be dismissed. He disputed that the misconduct fell under Standing Order 15 (3) (h) which provides, "riotous or disorderly behaviour during working hours at the establishment or any act subversive of discipline.

7. I find no force in the contention as the act of the appellant was a act of subversive of discipline. The respondent was a hotel and it was 23rd March, 1975 which was a public holiday. It is a matter of common knowledge that on holidays there are many customers visiting hotels. The closure of the lift was intended to cause hindrance to the business. It was a deliberate attempt on the part of the appellant to cause loss to the employer and therefore, it amounted to an act of indiscipline.

8. It was next urged that the inquiry report was suspicious as one of the Members of the Board of Inquiry went out to call the witness for the Management. I find nothing wrong with the fact that witness standing outside was called by one of the Members by going out. Another objection was taken that the inquiry report was already prepared before recording the statement of the witness. To support this, it was pointed out, that in the inquiry report the words, "19th November, 1974 were written in handwriting whereas the entire report was typed. In this connection it may be pointed out that the statement of the witness was recorded in Urdu and the inquiry report was in English. It appears that the typist left these words and they were written subsequently. Consequently by this fact only there is no reason to suppose that the statement of the witness was recorded after the inquiry report was prepared. It was also contended that witness, Maseeh, stated that the inquiry was held on 2nd April, 1975 but there is nothing in the inquiry report. This objection has no force in view of the inquiry proceedings which clearly establish that the inquiry was first fixed on 2nd April, 1975 and after some preliminary steps it was adjourned. Another objection which was taken is that the order was written by the Junior Labour Court in favour of the appellant before it was abolished, although it was not yet announced and, therefore, it ought to have been taken into consideration by the Labour Court. I find no force in this contention as an order which is not yet announced cannot be treated to be an order. The expression of any opinion by the Junior Labour Court was not binding on the Labour Court. Lastly, it was pleaded that although the evidence was concluded in the Junior Labour Court, it was necessary, for the Labour Court to record further evidence. This objection is equally devoid of any force as Labour Court was competent to dispose of the clatter on the evidence already recorded when the Junior Labour Court was abolished. Further more, no request was made to the Labour Court to record any additional evidence.

9. In result the appeal is dismissed.