1986 PLP 805 (PLC)

(3) The following acts and omissions shall be treated as misconduct:- (a) wilful insubordination or disobedience, whether alone or in combination with others, to any lawful and reasonable order of a superior. (b) theft, fraud, or dishonesty in connection with the employer's business or property; (c) wilful damage to or loss of employer's goods or property; (d) taking or giving bribes or any illegal gratification; (e) habitual absence without leave or absence without leave for more than ten days; (f) habitual late attendance; (g) habitual breach of any law applicable to the establishment; (h) riotous or disorderly behaviour during working hours at the establishment or any act subversive of discipline; (i) habitual negligence or neglect of work; (j) frequent repetition of any act or omission referred to in clause (1); (k) striking work or inciting others to strike in contravention of the provisions of any law, or rule having the force of law; (1) go-slow.

5. I have seen that he has not committed any offence within the purview of Standing Order 15 also. There is, however, one judgment of this Tribunal headed by Mr. Justice (Rtd.)

2. A. Channa reported in 1980 P L C

969. The relevant portion of the same is as under:- "Standing Order 15, as contained in the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, specifies in detail the acts which are considered to be misconduct for the purpose of the said Order. In my humble view, clause (3) of the said Order is exhaustive of the acts which amount to misconduct for the purposes of the said Order, and any act not falling within its purview 'would not be deemed to be misconduct for the purposes of the said Order and consequently would not entail punishment of dismissal. As the act for which the respondents were convicted and sentenced by the Martial Law Authorities does not appear to fall within the ambit of misconduct as specified in clause (3) of Standing Order 15, the punishment of dismissal could not be awarded to the respondents under the Standing Orders."

6. I would like to summarise the facts and arguments in this case. The Questionaire does not contain any column for previous convictions therefore, it cannot be said that the 'appellant suppressed his previous conviction. In fact in evidence he has admitted it. It shows his truthfulness. No fraud is perpetrated. In fact, there was no fraud. The facts as given in the evidence and in the enquiry report mention that he was employed for the years 1978 to 1981 with the Contractor of PASMIC and as such there is no obligation to mention his previous conviction. Previous conviction does not relate to his moral terpitude but it is related to breach of peace. The information given to the authorities of the establishment is that one of the Engineer but it is not proved from the independent source i.e. the Martial Law Authorities. However, the appellant has himself admitted. This admission does not concern to his behaviour under Standing Order 15 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, therefore, his dismissal was unwarranted.

7. In the result, I set aside the impugned order of the Labour Court No.IV Karachi and order the re-instatement of the appellant forthwith. As regards the back benefits, he be paid only 50% (fifty percent) of the back benefits. A. E. Orders accordingly.