1984 PLP 912 (PLC(CS))

Appeals Nos. LHR‑621 and 641‑Pb. of 1982, decided on' 10th August, 1983. ‑‑ S. 25‑A‑Scope‑Labour Court can go into facts and not only to see if proper defence opportunity given to accused worker Cannot substitute punishment other than awarded by employer Dismissal for misconduct‑Charge of addressing workers before start of work inside factory gate without permission of management and instigating them to go on strike‑Allegation of instigation for strike not established‑Mere addressing workers without permis sion of management, held, does not amount to misconduct Order of Labour Court substituting penalty of stoppage of increment for dismissal set aside by Appellate Tribunal and worker, in circumstances, held, not entitled to back benefits on re‑instatement. Malik Bashir Ahmad for Appellant. Respondent in person. Date of hearing : 7th August, 1983. The two appeals captioned above arise from the decision, dated 30th October, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, whereby Qabool Shah (hereinafter to be called as the respondent) was directed to be re‑instated in service without back benefits, substituting the punishment of stopping of increment for one year for dismissal. P.E.C.O. (hereinafter to be described as the appellant) has challenged the main statement, whereas the respondent has challenged the punishment of stopping of increment and has claimed back benefits. As both the appeals emanate from the same decision, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.

2. The allegations against the respondent were that he on 30th March, 1980 and 31st March, 1980 held meeting inside the main gate of the factory at 7‑00 a. m., during which he raised slogans, abused the management and instigated the workers to go on illegal strike.

3. The witnesses examined by the management supported its case during enquiry but the defence witnesses supported the defence version of the respondent. There are many discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses but the defence is very consistent. P. W. 1 deposed that the respondent said that they were demanding their rights and were not asking the hand of a girl in marriage. This thing was not said bar P. W. 2 and P. W.

3. Likewise, P. W. 2 said that if the management could stop them at the gate they could also do the same, but this was not said by other prosecution witnesses. So far as the speech made by the respondent, on 31st March, 1980 is concerned only P. W. 1 deposed about it but no other witness supported him. Solitary statement of P. W. 1 not corroborated by any other witness could not be believed. p. W. 3 deposed that the respondent said in his speech that the manage ment had suffered on account of the exclusion of Sher Muhammad, General Secretary. No other witness said so. The respondent appears to be a straight forward person. He admitted that he was given opportunity to cross‑examine the witnesses and to produce his defence. He admitted his signatures on the enquiry proceedings. He did not come forward with false objections.

4. So far as the allegation of instigating the workers to go on strike is concerned, none of the witnesses supported this allegation. If the respondent had in reality instigated the workers some of them must have observed strike but this is not the case of the appellant. Merely addres sing the workers before the start of the working hours is not objectionable. The enquiry officer and the learned lower Court did not properly scrutinise the evidence produced by the appellant during the enquiry. According to section 25‑A(5) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, Labour Court can go into the facts of the case and has not only to see if proper opportunity of defending himself was given to the worker concerned. A However, the respondent should have sought permission to address the workers within the factory premises, but failure on his part to take permis sion does not amount to misconduct.

5. As a result of what has been observed above, I do not find any force in the appeal of the appellant and dismiss the same. Cross appeal of the respondent is accepted partly. Since the respondent did not take permission to address the workers within the factory premises, he is not e entitled to back benefits. The punishment of stopping of increment, even otherwise, could not be awarded in place of dismissal, because the Labour Courts have no such powers. The punishment of stopping of increment is, therefore, set aside. A. E. Appeal dismissed.