1984 PLP 453 (PLC)

‑‑ S. O. 15 (3) (h)‑Subversion‑‑Respect and decorum of superiors must be maintained‑‑Workman suffering from fever with tempera ture of 100.3 and not out of senses demanding for an ambulance to carry him home‑No ambulance available‑Supervisor asking to go home in a vehicle which was per chance going‑Workman asking supervisor to "get out" and allegedly catching hold of his shirt and abusing him‑Allegation of uttering loudly "get out" only proved‑Such act of workman, in circumstances, held, amounted to subversion of discipline‑Workman though not working actually but incident occurring during working hours and in presence of other employees‑Contention that in view of facts that work man was suffering from fever and was not actually working on duty but was waiting to go home such act did not amount to misconduct‑Rejected‑Dismissal from service, held, justified Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38(3). Abdul Aziz Qureshi for Appellant. Irshad Ali Mian for Respondent. Date of hearing : 1st September, 1.981. This appeal arises from the decision, dated 8th May, 1978 passed by the learned Punjab Labour Court No. 3, Lahore at Ferozewala, where by the petition of the appellant given under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was dismissed.

2. The appellant was an Operator in the respondent‑Company. He fell ill on 15th April, 1976 and was examined by the doctor of the com pany who recommended sick leave for three days. He was suffering from fever and high blood pressure. The appellant had to go home and asked the Management to arrange for an ambulance, but no ambulance was available. After sometime Mr. Javed lqbal, Supervisor, asked the appellant to go home in a vehicle which per chance was going. The appellant said to him `get out'. He is alleged to have caught ;old of the shirt of Mr. Javed Iqbal, pulled it and abused him. Mr. Javed Iqbal stated the something before the Enquiry Officer Fazal Elahi and Jalal Qureshi stated only this much that the appellant had spoken loudly.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the allegation of catching hold of the shirt of Mr: Javed Iqbal and abusing him did not stand proved, inasmuch as other two witnesses namely Fazal Elahi and Jalal Qureshi did not support him. Mr. Javed Iqbal gave the whole story at length and was not cross‑examined. If he bad said something falsely, the appellant would not have left him uncross‑examined on the facts falsely stated. The statement of Fazal Elahi recorded by the Enquiry Officer does not show that he was present with Jalal Qureshi before the incident took place. He may be at some d1stance, therefore, could not catch the actual words and only heard something said loudly. Even if the allegations that the appellant caught hold of the shirt of Javed Iqbal, pulled it and abused him, are taken not to have been proved, the words 'get out' were sufficient to prove sub‑I version of discipline.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant says that since the appellant was not on duty and was waiting to go home at the time he uttered these words, what he said did not amount to subversion of discipline. Its not necessary that the appellant at that time should have been actually working. The incident took place during working hours when other employees were present, therefore, the words uttered by him b amount to subversion of discipline. I do not find any force in the argu ment that since the appellant was suffering from fever and high blood pressure, the misconduct was not wilful. The evidence is that the tem perature of the appellant at that time was 100.3 This was not a high temperature. If the temperature had been 104 or 105 of course there could have been some scope to say that the appellant was not completely in his senses. So, what he said be meant it. Mr. Javed lqbal was boss of the appellant, so the latter was not justified in loudly saying him `get out' In 1980 P L C 711 it was held that loud voice and threatening amounted to misconduct. The admin1stration of firms and establishments cannot run if the subordinates are allowed to commit criminal intimidation, contempt and acts subversive of discipline before their superiors and immediate officers. If such are allowed, there will be no protection to officers and even to the other workers. If superiors can be abused and manhandled, what to speak of the colleagues and subordinates. The respect and decorum of the superiors must be maintained. The charge against the appellant was proved and he was rightly dismissed. I do not find any force in this appeal and dismiss it. A. E. Appeal dismissed,