1994 PLP 436 (PLC)

The aforesaid act of yours in a misconduct under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. You arc hereby charge‑sheeted and directed to show cause within two days of the receipt of this charge‑sheet as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against you.

3. The reply to the same was furnished, but as the same was not found to be satisfactory, letters of enquiry were issued and the Management had appointed Zulfiqar Ali Khan, the General Manager as an Enquiry Officer. his Ahmed Qazi, Assistant Manager, Abid Ali Siddiqui, Chief Accountant, Muhammad Ziauddin, Assistant Manager, Finance, Murad Tunis, Security Officer and Noman Ali Bokhari an Auditor were examined on behalf of the Management. There were also witnesses examined on behalf of the defence. As according to the report, charge of misconduct had been substantiated, an order of dismissal followed on 10‑6‑1989.

4. The petitioners had served the grievance notice and later filed the petitions. The petitions came 'to be resisted by the respondent on a number of grounds.

5. The Labour Court for the reasons given by it, dismissed the petition culminating in these appeals.

6. The witnesses at the enquiry gave graphic details of the borrowing incident and how even the electricity of the Mill had been put out of commission. Before the Labour Court Mazhar Hussain, Excise Inspector, Mirza Jehangir Azhar, Joint Director, Labour had been examined in support of the statements of Qazi Anis Ahmed and others. The presence of the Joint Director, Labour is not denied by Manjhi Khan, who was the President of the union. All he had to say was that he had turned up at the Mill for some private work of his own. It is rather naive. Manjhi Khan has also admitted in cross-examination that the N.I.R.C. had issued prohibitory order on 5‑4‑1989 to call off the strike. The witness had also stated that the District Administration and the police authorities has also to be summoned to come for their rescue. Its genuineness in the main finds confirmation even from the reply given by Manjhi Khan to the charge‑sheet. It will be in the fitness of things to reproduce the facts in his own words as to be found in paragraphs 7/8 of his reply:‑‑ "

7. That the actual facts of the matter are as follows:‑‑ (a) According to Term No. 2 of the settlement dated 5‑3‑1989 your Management had to pay wages by increase of 20% increase was only in the structure of scales of pay and no increase was to be given in the wages of the workers. (b) That on 3‑4‑1989 the union officers had discussed this matter with your Management which had insisted that according to said term of the settlement no increase in wages was to be given. (c) All workers knew and it was also evident from the settlement that 20% increase was to be given in the wages which was clearly a flagrant violation of the terms of the settlement. (d) That it was the serious situation for the Union Officers to explain to the workers as the workers were blaming the union for falsely announcing about increase in the wages and as such it was essential for the officers of the union to clarify their position and it was in view of this fact that the union officers had addressed Gate Meetings at 4‑00 p.m. on 3‑4‑1989 and at mid‑night on 3‑4‑1989 explaining the version of the Management. (e) The situation was a creation of the Management and it was sufficient for provocation to the workers who had become quite out of control and the union officers were completely helpless in the matter.

8. That the whole responsibility lies on your Management for false stand and faulty communication. As your Management had itself in realization of its fault has paid correctly according to the Term No. 2 of the Settlement on 9‑4‑1989. In view of above submissions I submit that I have not committed any misconduct and no provision of law is attracted to taking any action against me. The so‑called charge‑sheet deserves to be withdrawn and I request accordingly."

7. The only thing, therefore, that requires examination is whether the enquiry against the appellant was fair and proper.

8. It is true that a letter had been sent by Akbar Ali Khawaja on 4‑6‑1989 to the Deputy General Manager complaining that in the enquiry letter they had not mentioned the name of the prosecution witness and also the documents on which they relied upon or which they proposed to produce before the Enquiry Officer. That was promptly replied to. Patently these are rather fanciful. There is also a protest against the nomination of the Enquiry Officer which is as follows:‑‑ "

11. That I also submit that the' Enquiry officer appointed by you by no stretch of imagination is an independent and impartial person and I believe that he will be biased in favour of your Management."

9. These allegations are also chimerical in nature, and without any basis. It also appears‑that full accommodation was provided to the appellants and on their demands the proceedings were adjourned. It was all alone conducted with care and patience as can be seen from the nature and the length of the cross-examination.

10. I am satisfied that all the relevant material necessary for the defence of the appellant had been provided and even if the second show‑cause notice was not given it is not incumbent under the law. There is a plathora of case law on the subject (see Dawood Cotton Mills v. Guftar Shah PLD 1981 SC 225).

11. I am afraid there is no merit in these appeals. I will therefore uphold the order and dismiss the appeals. H.B.T./2289/Lb.S Appeals dismissed.