1993 PLP 98 (PLC)

Mrs. Asmat Khan was working as `Telephone Operator' with M/s. Pakistan Herald Publications (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi, for some ten years. Her services came to be terminated and the order was challenged before the Labour court. She was ordered to be reinstated but the Labour Court in its order, all the same gave a finding that the `Inquiry' held against her was free of any blemish. She has preferred an appeal assailing that finding and M/s. Pakistan Herald Publications Ltd. filed an appeal against the order of her reinstatement. Both these appeals against the same order will be disposed of by this one common order. (In the decision, I will refer to Mrs. Asmat Khan as the `respondent' and Herald Publications as the `appellant').

2. The circumstances forming the background of the case are that on 22‑8‑1990, soon after the end of the working hours the respondent leaving her room went inside the Office Room allocated to Box Number Replies which at the relevant moment was in the sole occupation of Muhammad Yaqoob Abbasi. When the room was closed from inside, suspicion of some staffers was aroused. Word spread and people collected together and started clamouring for the opening of the door. The noise which had been created brought some Senior Officers too, and when the door was opened after about 15 minutes the respondent had come out followed by the above‑said Muhammad Yaqoob Abbasi. The information of the incident was later lodged with the authorities and show‑cause notices were issued to both of them. The respondent had furnished the reply. That did not satisfy the establishment and an `Inquiry' was ordered.

3. The inquiry was conducted by Akhlaque Ali Khan and a number of persons who were either witnesses of the incident or appeared on the scene soon there after were examined, namely Fahimuddin, Assistant Manager Advertisement, Zain Kisat, Business Manager Advertisement, Sardar Khan and Muhammad Saleem, Peons and one Aziz Ahmed, who had only derivative version to offer. The Enquiry Officer also examined Miss Kalim Akhtar as a witness produced' on behalf of the respondent. In his report he found the incident to be subversive of discipline. As far as Muhammad Yaqoob Abbasi was concerned his finding was that it was a case of gross negligence if not misconduct. The services of the respondent came to be terminated by the Deputy Chief Executive on 2‑10‑1990 in the following words:‑ "I have minutely gone through the inquiry report and fully agree with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, that the act committed by you is subversive of discipline. You have brought this organization in disrepute. You should have been dismissed from service, but taking a lenient view, your services are hereby terminated with immediate effect. You can collect all your legal dues including three months salary in lieu of notice etc. from the Personnel Department on fulfilment of necessary formalities."

4. The Labour Court found that the Enquiry Officer had conducted the `Inquiry' "in a most fair and impartial manner which could be expected from a judicial officer of highest calibre". It appears that Muhammad Yaqoob Abbasi had been let off by the employers with the stoppage of one increment. The disparity in the treatment meted out to the two of them was noticed and commented up. It was found to be against natural justice and ordered her reinstatement. This led to an appeal being filed by M/s. Pakistan Herald Publications Ltd. and another appeal on behalf of the respondent against finding of the inquiry report, as mentioned earlier.

5. The witnesses of the incident examined at the Inquiry, are from different cadres. Zain Kisat is the Business Manager of the Management and Fahimuddin is an Assistant Manager. Nothing smacks of any bias in any of them, nor were the two persons speak‑easy witnesses. In the grievance petition it was mentioned that the establishment was desirous of getting the respondent's resignation. Later on she also introduced the word `conspiracy' but there is no trace of these on the record. The demand of the resignation was never suggested either to Zain Kisat or to Fahimuddin and for the matter any body else. Aziz Ahmad, who was a Probationary Officer, also had been examined. They don't belong to the class of what has been called as the "coiners of scandals, clippers of reputations and utterers of forged tales". Zain Kisat had been attracted to the scene on the noise which had been raised. He mentions that they had knocked at the door repeatedly and the same had been opened after considerable delay. He had also seen the two of them coming out from inside. Fahimuddin had also peeped through the exhaust fan as Zain Kisat had done. He professes to be a friend of the respondent's husband and vouchsafes for the probity of her character.

6. It is also to be seen that the respondent, at different stages, beginning from the explanation she offered till the end of the proceedings, had gone on shifting her stand. To begin with she said the door had been closed because of the wind pressure, later that she had gone to fetch an envelope and then that she had gone to deliver a message of her husband. She never makes any mention of Miss Kalim Akhtar at all during all the happenings and therefore the statement of Miss Kalim Akhtar that she had met the respondent immediately before and after the alleged incident and there was nothing to talk about is neither here nor there. Under the circumstances no fault could be, or has been found, by the Labour Court in the enquiry proceedings or in the narration put forward in the Court either. With this finding it was a logical corollary to dismiss the grievance application and not order the reinstatement only on the ground that the treatment of Mohammad Yaqoob Abbasi at the hands of the appellants was altogether different. The awarding of punishment is an internal matter of the employers. The matter for consideration before the Labour Court was simply whether the termination of service was in order. I am clearly of the opinion that no fault can be found with their action so far as the respondent is concerned.

7. The establishment had taken a very fair attitude by terminating the respondent's services and saved her from the ignominy of dismissal. To adopt the course that was adapted, was in accordance with law (See the Supreme Court of Pakistan's judgment viz. Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. Channa Khan and others (1980 PLC page 981).

8. In the result I will reverse the order of the Labour Court reinstating Mrs. Asmat Khan in service and allow the appeal of M/s. Pakistan Herald Publications (Pvt.) Ltd. The counter‑appeal filed by Mrs. Asmat Khan is dismissed. A.A./2030/LB.S Order accordingly.