1988 PLP 699 (PLC(CS))

These are four appeals, separately filed by each appellant against `the impugned orders dated 21‑5‑1987, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. II, Karachi, who had dismissed the grievance petitions of the appellants filed under section 25‑A. I.R.O. 1969. As, the facts and circumstances of these four, appeals are common and similar, therefore, I would decide' these: appeals by this single decision.

2. Brief facts ‑of ‑the cases are that all the four appellants claimed to b e the permanent workmen, of the respondent establishment and also to be the office‑bearers and: active members of the Collective Bargaining Agent Union. They claimed that on 14‑11‑1984, they were issued charge‑sheets on the allegations of misconduct to have been committed by them on 29th/30th of October, 1984. According to the charge‑sheets, the allegations were that the appellants entered the Canteen, took up 'tea trays and cups and threw them on the floor and had damaged the crockery of the canteen and had also incited the other workers to follow them resulting in that a scene of indiscipline and chaos was created. The claim of the appellants was that though they had denied the allegations‑ on the ground that they were falsely implicated mainly due to controversy going on between the management and the C.B.A. Union, set, enquiries were held against them which were not only perverse, biased and unlawful but also a measure of victimization, resulting in their dismissal from service. However, the appellants claimed that after complying with the legal requirements, they had filed their respective grievance petitions under section 25‑A, I. R.O 1969.

3. The respondent establishment resisted the petitions on the ground that the grievance petitions of the appellants were not legally maintainable for the reasons that the dismissal of the appellants was neither in pursuance of an industrial .dispute nor had led to an industrial dispute and as such they were not workmen as defined in section 2 (xxviii) of I. R,O. 1969. The respondent establishment further claimed the that appellant's were not active members of the C.B.A. Union and/or they 'worked for the welfare of the workmen of the establishment They claimed that on 29th/30th October, 1985, the appellants very unlawfully and unauthorisedly intervened into the administrative affairs of the canteen of the establishment and they had not only threatened the responsible staff of the canteen for dire consequences, but, they had also seriously destroyed and damaged the crockery etc. , the belongings of the canteen, consequently they were charge‑sheeted on 14‑11‑1984 for riotous and disorderly behaviour and for causing loss and damage to the respondent establishment's property. The respondent establishment further claimed that as the explanations of the appellants were not found satisfactory, therefore, a domestic enquiry was conducted against all the appellants quite lawful in which they were afforded fully opportunity to defend themselves as per requirements of the law resulting in that the Enquiry Officer found the appellants guilty of the misconduct so they were rightly dismissed from service, hence, their grievance petitions were not rightly maintainable and were liable to be dismissed.

4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits in‑evidence and they were duly cross‑examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court passed the impugned orders hence, these four appeals.

5. I have heard Mr. Ali Amjad, the learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani, the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent establishment and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the cases. At the very outset, I would hold that the impugned orders of the learned Labour Court in all these four appeals are thoroughly discussed and with reasons on each and every issue contended by both the parties, therefore, they need not to be interfered with. However, Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani, the learned Advocate for the respondent establishment has argued that it is an admitted position that the issue of replacement of the crockery was thoroughly discussed and decided in different meetings of the Works Council and finally the issue was dropped, vide minutes of the Works Council, dated 25‑7‑1984, therefore, after the above decision, the appellants were not permitted to take up the issue of the crockery or anything else in connection with the affairs of the canteen, into their hands and to create a scene of indiscipline. Mr. Mahmood Ghani further argued that as per settlements arrived at between the management and the C. B. A. Union of which the appellants claimed to be the active members, the canteen was being run by a Committee, consisting of the representatives of both the management and the C.B. A. Union. He pointed out that the appellants in their cross‑examination had also admitted the receipts of the charge‑sheets, holding of the proper domestic enquiries and they never objected to the competency of the person, issuing, either the charge‑sheets or the dismissal orders. Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani further pointed out that the General Secretary of the C.B.A. union has also directly admitted the commission of the misconduct by the appellants, therefore, in view of this admission, the contentions of the appellants that they were victimized for the welfare activities of the workmen have no force. In support of his arguments, Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani, the learned Advocate for the respondent‑establishment had relied upon 42 F.J.R. at page 97‑98; P L D 1981 S C 176 at 182; 1983 P L C 37; 1987 P L C 2 3; 1979 P L C 5 at 6 ; 1969 P L C 416 a t 419; 1982 PLC 241 at 244; 1980 P L C 369 at 370; 1977 P L C at 148; 1980 P L C 178 at 179; 1984 P L C 576 at 579; 1960 P L C 530 at 531; 1984 PLC 610 at 612; 1986 P L C 515 at 516; 1985 P L C 570 at page 574; 1960 P L C 439 at page 458; 1986 P L C 1131 at 1133; 1978 S C M R 212 at 214; 1985 P L C 991 at 992; 1986 P L C 5 a t 10; 1984 P L C 215 at 277 and 1984 P L C 1710 at 1712 on the different issues directly involved in all the present four appeals. While on the other hand, Mr. Ali Amjad the learned Advocate for the appellants, has not only denied all the incidents alleged against the appellants, but, has also stressed that on the alleged date and timings, none of the appellants was present in the canteen. However, he has reiterated his contentions what he has submitted before the learned Labour Court and in support of his pleadings, lie has again relied upon A.I.R. 1924 (Nagpur) at page 103; A.I.R. 1984 at page 293 and PLD 1986 Kar. 431 at

439. In view of the above legal and factual position, I would hold that the appellants were guilty of the misconduct and the domestic enquiry conducted against them was quite fair and lawful resulting in their dismissals from service by the competent authorities. Therefore, the learned Labour Court has rightly dismissed their grievance petitions, which need not to be interfered with.

6. For the reasons stated by me above, I would maintain the impugned orders and would dismiss the present four appeals of the appellants accordingly. A. E. /1103/Lb.S Appeals dismissed.