1988 PLP 362 (PLC)

Date of hearing: 16th August, 1987. This is an appeal filed by five appellants against a common impugned order, dated 11‑8‑1987, passed by the Sind Labour Court No.IV, Karachi, who had allowed the grievance petitions of the appellants to the extent that they were reinstated by setting aside the dismissal orders from the stage after completing enquiry and directed the respondent mills to pass fresh orders within shortest possible time.

2. Brief facts of the cases are that all the five appellants claimed to be the permanent workmen of the respondent mills and claimed to be the office‑bearer members of Azad Labour Union, a registered trade union in the respondent establishment. The appellants claimed that on 13‑4‑1986, all the workers of 'C' shift were gate‑stopped which caused unrest among the workers, as a whole. The appellants claimed that as a consequence of that unrest, the respondent mills resorted to illegal lockout and that due to .the intervention of the Labour Department and other Law Enforcing Agency the alleged lockout was lifted and the work started as usual but with on this condition that no action will be taken by either side. The case of the appellants was that subsequently they were charge‑sheeted and thereafter were dismissed illegally without affording proper opportunities as well as without complying with the legal requirement. The appellants further claimed that all this was done at the instance of the C.B.A. union who did not like the referendum to be held in the mills as the C.B.A. was loosing confidence of the workers being a pocket union of the respondent mills, the appellants submitted their grievance petitions separately before the learned Labour Court under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969.

3. The case of the respondent mills was that it was incorrect to allege that they had illegally gate‑stopped the workers, but, in fact, it was an illegal strike which was 'also prohibited by the Labour Court. The respondent mills further claimed that they had nothing to do with the dispute of the rival unions or had possessed the knowledge of the office‑bearership of Azad Labour Union. Further, the case of the respondent was that all the appellants were given full, proper and reasonable opportunities to defend themselves in a lawfully held domestic enquiry resulting in that all the appellants were correctly dismissed from services. The respondent mills also claimed that in view of the latest judicial pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Dawood Cotton Mills v. Mukhtar Shah, it was not necessary to issue a second show‑cause notice. Therefore, in view of this factual and legal position, the respondent mills claimed that the grievance petitions of all the five appellants were not maintainable and were liable to be dismissed.

4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits‑in‑evidence and they were duly cross‑examined. As, the case and the facts of Muhammad Ayoob was identical as of the other four appellants, therefore, by consent of the parties, the evidence recorded in the case of Muhammad Ayoob by both the parties was considered as evidence in all other cases, therefore, the learned Labour Court has passed a common impugned order, hence this joint appeal. 5.I have heard Mr. Raja Shamsuzzaman, the learned Advocate for the appellants, and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. I have also gone through the impugned order and find that the learned Labour Court had given its findings that the charge of misconduct was fully established in properly and lawfully held ex parte enquiry and nothing wrong was done by the respondent mills in this behalf. The learned Labour Court has also held that the dismissal orders were signed by a competent person. However, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order, relying on some authorities of the superior Courts as had been) submitted by the appellants. Most of these authorities were distinguishable and were not at all applicable either to the circumstances of the present cases or to the cases coming within the ambit of Labour Laws. The learned Labour Court was wrong in rejecting different authorities which were submitted or relied upon by the respondent mills, in view of the evidence brought on record, factual aspects of the cases and also the findings of the learned Labour Court on certain admitted position, I would hold that the order of re‑instatement of the appellants was incorrect and wrong, hence, it is set aside. Thus, the appellants were not entitled to maintain their' grievance petitions before the learned Labour Court, so, these are hereby dismissed. I also find no substance in the present appeal.

6. For the reasons stated by me above, I would set aside the impugned order and would dismiss all the five grievance petitions of the appellants filed by them under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969 before the learned Labour Court. I would accordingly dismiss the present appeal in limine. A. E. /1076/Lb.S???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Orders accordingly.