1994 PLP 713 (PLC(CS))

On 16th January, 1990 your duty was from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. on the said date at about 10‑15 a.m. you alongwith Ashraf Ali, and Hanif went to the office of the Personnel and Administrative Officer and demanded that the advance taken by you against your wages should not be recovered from your wages but should be adjusted against your bogus medical bills and Ashraf Ali had demanded that the loan taken by him should be adjusted against the payment of the cost of his bicycle, which was alleged to be stolen. You and the above‑named persons had asked the Personnel and Administrative Officer to accompany them to the Accounts Department and to issue instructions accordingly. On his refusal to accompany you to the Accounts Department you and the above‑named persons had abused and used very filthy language towards the Personnel and Administrative officer, his mother and sister. Thereafter, you picked up a chair to assault the Personnel and Administrative Officer but was prevented from assaulting him by the Security Incharge who was present there at that time. Thereafter, you Ashraf Ali and Hanif left his office and went out and brought with you Muhammad Nasim, Muhammad Aslam, Mujahid and some other workers to the office of the Personnel and Administrative Officer and started abusing and using very filthy and vulgar language towards him and you along all persons whose names are mentioned above had forcibly taken him to the Accounts Department where the Personnel and Administrative Officer had refused to give any instruction to the Accounts Department. There also you and your above‑named colleagues had abused and used very filthy and vulgar language towards him, his mother and sister and dragged him out of the Main Office in the open space. There you and your colleagues' had `gharaoed' him and you, and Ashraf Ali, Muhammad Aslam, Muhammad Hanif, Muhammad Nasim and Muhammad Mujahid threatened that all of you will kill him and hang his‑dead body in the Mills. Thereafter, you alongwith the above‑named colleagues had assaulted the Personnel and Administrative Officer causing severe bodily injuries to him. The Personnel and Administrative Officer was rescued from your clutches by the Officers and Security men of the Mills. These acts on your part amount to riotous and disorderly behaviour during working hours and acts subversive of discipline. This constitutes misconduct as per Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinances and you are, therefore, called upon to show cause within 48 hours of the receipt of‑this notice as to why severe disciplinary action should not be taken against you. for MEHRAN JUTE MILLS LIMITED (Sd.) MILLS MANAGER.

2. The petitioner had made an application praying that he be provided the Urdu translation .of the said charge‑sheet so that he might know "as to what glad tidings awaited him." The same was not provided and an Enquiry Letter followed on 13‑2‑1990: The petitioner had again asked for a copy of the letter in Urdu. The proceedings fixed for the 21st of February, however, came to be adjourned for 28‑2‑1990. The petitioner did not turn up again as according to him arrangement had been made for the presence of a Police party to nab him. Be that as it may the matter was adjourned for 8‑3‑1991 and as there was no trace of the petitioner, ex parte proceedings were held in which enquiries were made from a number of persons namely Muhammad Azam Ahmed Azmati, Personnel and Administrative Officer, Shah Muhammad Ajmal, Mughees Ahmed and Muhammad Kamal Ahsan, Senior Administrative Officer.

3. Mutiur Rab had later submitted his report, on the basis of which the petitioner came to be dismissed on 8‑4‑1990. On 26‑6‑1991 he had sent a grievance notice which was replied to and as no redress was provided lie followed it up by a petition before the Labour Court.

4. The petitioner was his own witness while Mutiur Rab the Enquiry Officer, Muhammad Azam Ali Azmati and Shamsuddin the Mill Manager appeared on behalf of the respondents.

5. The Labour Court for the reasons given by it found the dismissal beyond reproach and dismissed the petition.

6. The strained relation between the respondents and a group of their workers is not under dispute. It was simmering for quite sometime and the details have been furnished by the witnesses at the enquiry. The appellant was served with the charge‑sheet and was aware of all the dates which had been fixed for hearing. He did not choose to be present on any of these dates on one pretext or another. It is true that the proceedings were kept at the Head Office but no fault can be found with the ??? in principle or otherwise. Looking to the frayed tampers of the workers and the recurring unruly scenes, it was safer to hold it, at a place where there was no room for hooliganism. If the appellant, therefore, did not choose to contest the proceedings and vindicate his innocence, he has to thank himself for the consequences. There is a mass of evidence showing outright defiance of authority if not worse, and the respondents could not be expected to keep the proceedings pending till the day' the appellant condescended to put up his appearance:

7. There is enough case‑law that in the face of such a contumacious behaviour on the part of the worker ex parte proceedings will be eminently justified. (See Dawood Cotton Mill v. Guftar Shah and others PLD 1980 1 Supreme Court 225).

8. There is no substance in the appeal I will, therefore, dismiss it. H.B.T./2336/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.