1988 PLP 408 (PLC)

M.A.Khan for Appellant. Ali Amjad and Faiz Ghanghro for Respondents. Date of hearing: 29th September, 1987. These are two separate appeals filed by the appellant management namely, Messers Parke Davis & Company Limited, Karachi, against a common impugned order, dated 16‑5‑1987, passed by the Sind Labour Court No.III, Karachi, who had allowed the grievance petitions of the respondent workers directing their re‑instatement in service with full back benefits, under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969. As the facts and circumstances of both these appeals are common and similar, therefore, I would also dispose of both these appeals by this common decision.

2. Brief facts of the case are that both the respondent workers claimed to be permanently employed in the appellant management as Packer/Machine Operator and that on 8‑9‑1985, both of them were charge‑sheeted for an alleged misconduct that on 3‑9‑1985 at about 10.10 A.M. they fought with one Miss Agha Nusrat, a co‑worker and used abusive language against her and that respondent, Miss Shamim Shafiq had also slapped Miss Agha Nusrat on her face thereby causing injury on her left chick. The respondent workers further claimed that they had not only disputed the allegations, but, they had also submitted a compromise application to the appellant management alongwith their respective explanation to the charge‑sheets and that as it was found un‑satisfactory, therefore, a domestic enquiry was ordered against them resulting in their dismissals from service, vide letter, dated 15‑12‑1985. Further, the case of the respondent workers was that keeping in view the evidence brought even before the perverse and partial enquiry compromise and mutual understanding between the workers and all other circumstances, the findings of the enquiry officer holding them guilty of the alleged misconduct were quite biased and manufactured, therefore, being aggrieved they had submitted grievance petitions before the learned Labour Court under section 25‑A , I.R.0. 1969.

3. The appellant management resisted both the grievance petitions of the respondent workers on the ground that as both of them were involved in an incident leading to serious breach of discipline, therefore, their dismissal from service was quite lawful, so, they could not maintain their grievance petitions, which were liable to be dismissed.

4. I have heard Mr. M. A. Khan, the learned Advocate for the appellant management and Mr. Ali Amjad, the learned Advocate on behalf of both the respondent workers and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the cases. At the very out‑set I would observe here that the impugned order is highly well reasoned and thoroughly discussed, therefore, it need not to be interfered with. However, Mr. M.A. Khan, the learned Advocate for the appellant management has contended that the learned Labour Court had failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law and or committed a jurisdictional error by not acting in accordance with the provisions of section 25‑A (5), I.R.O. 1969, therefore, the impugned order based upon misreading of evidence on record and/or being the result of ignoring material evidence which had established the guilt of the two respondent workers beyond any shadow of doubt. Mr. M.A. Khan has further pleaded that the learned Labour Court had again erred in ignoring the wording and tenor of the mercy petition, which clearly shows that it is an admission of the guilt on the part of both the respondents for which they were dismissed. In support of his submissions, Mr. M.N. Khan the learned Advocate for the appellant management has referred to me some authorities, reported in 1987 PLC page 23 at page 25, 1981 P L D (S.C.) page 225 at page 234; and an Indian authority in the case of Suresh Koshy George v. University of Kerala and other, I find no substance in any of the contentions of Mr. M.A. Khan. The authorities relied upon by him are distinguishable and not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present cases.

5. While, on the other hand, Mr. Ali Amjad, the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent workers had reiterated his submissions what he had submitted before the learned Labour Court. Mr. Ali Amjad, the learned Advocate for the respondent workers has further relied upon the cases reported in 1980 P L C Page 1089 at 1092 and A. I. R. 1983 S.C. (?) and a number of other decisions of this Tribunal on the points involved in the present cases.

6. For the reasons discussed by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order which is hereby maintained. The present two appeals are accordingly dismissed. The respondent workers were directed to be reinstated in service with full back benefits forthwith. The amount of back benefits deposited by the appellant management before this Tribunal, be immediately paid to both the respondent workers, after due verification. A.E./1117/Lb.S??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeals dismissed.