1988 PLP 36 (PLC)

3. The management resisted these petitions before the Labour Court on the ground that there is more than one registered Trade Union in the corporation and the said workmen were belonging to one union namely, Metropolitan Steel Corporation Workers Union led by Mahmood Ahmad Qureshi, one of the petitioner workmen in the present proceedings and there were different groups, even, in this Union, so there was always a problem of Law & Order prevailing in the Corporation. That another employee of the Corporation, namely, Abdul Majeed, got registered in the year 1983, a Trade Union in the corporation under the name of Metropolitan Steel Corporation Labour Union that on 17‑1‑1983, the petitioner workman namely, Mahmood Ahmed Qureshi had tried to implicate the said Abdul Majeed of the rival union in connection with a duplicate medical card to a worker in collusion with his friend Abdul Qayyum, Deputy Manager, Quality Control who was also the President of the senior Employees Association of the corporation, another rival association/ union alleged to be a corporation of the employers formed by the lower cadre management staff; resulting in the immediate issuance of a charge‑sheet to Abdul Majeed, but, in spite of this, the said Mahmood Qureshi went in the office and abused the said Abdul Majeed and again, on the same day at about 3.50 P.M. the said Mahmood Qureshi and his colleagues, the other two workmen/ petitioners namely, Akbar Khan and Abdul Aziz Khan along with Abdul Qayyum had attacked Abdul Majeed and Muhammad Ayaz near the Re-rolling Mills "main‑gate and inflicted injuries to them and had also tried to pullout Shalwar" of Abdul Majeed which got-torned and the said Abdul Majeed became semi‑nacked. So, far this chain of connected incidents of 17‑1‑1983, Abdul Majeed was issued two charge‑sheets dated 17‑1‑1983 and 19‑1‑1983 the petitioner/ workmen involved in the incident were also issued one charge‑sheet? each dated 19‑1‑1983 and since the explanations to these charge‑sheets were not found satisfactory, therefore, a domestic enquiry was ordered and pending the enquiry, all the charge‑sheeted persons, including Abdul Majeed and Muhammad Ayaz were suspended from duty. The domestic enquiry commenced on 20‑2‑1983 and continued till 1‑6‑1983 due to ‑delaying tactics adopted by the workmen /petitioners and that though it was not justified, yet the Corporation had changed the Enquiry Officer merely to satisfy some of the charge‑sheeted persons on their written request, particularly of Mahmood Ahmed Qureshi and the new Enquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry from 26‑2‑1983 to 1‑6‑1983 and since, the chain of events of 17‑1‑1983 were inter‑connected, therefore, a joint enquiry was conducted. That all required formalities were fulfilled while conducting the domestic enquiry and the workmen were afforded full, reasonable and lawful opportunity to cross‑examine the prosecution witnesses and to produce defence witnesses and as a consequence of this, the Enquiry Officer, in his detailed enquiry report containing 12 pages had found the workmen guilty of the misconduct and had acquitted two persons, namely Abdul Majeed and, Muhammad Ayaz. Further, the case of the corporation was that the Officers of a trade union were not above the Law, therefore, the question of any alleged mala fide or victimization did not arise and that these three workmen were rightly and lawfully dismissed from their services. Thus, they could not maintain their grievance petitions which were liable to be dismissed.

4. By consent of both the parties, the evidence of Mahmood Ahmad Qureshi, one of the petitioner workmen was considered and treated as evidence in other two cases also. So much so, the evidence of the Corporation in the case of Mahmood Qureshi was also treated as evidence in other two cases. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court had passed the impugned order hence, these six cross appeals.

5. I have heard Mr. S. M. Yaqoob, the learned representative for the management Corporation and Mr. Ali Amjad, the learned Counsel for the workmen/ petitioners and have also very carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. Mr. S.M. Yaqoob the learned representative for the management has "submitted that as the workers/ petitioners were involved along with one Abdul Qayyum, Deputy Manager of the management, in the acts of gross misconduct within the premises during duty hours and at the gate of the factory, therefore, all of them were charge‑sheeted and a proper, lawful and fair domestic enquiry was held against all of them including the said Deputy Manager. He Further submitted that as one of the accused workmen, namely, Mahmood Ahmed Qureshi was the main responsible accused person, therefore I would refer to the charge‑sheet issued to him, as under: "After the alleged incident of scoring out the remarks of Deputy Manager (Quality Control) on the application dated 17‑1‑1983 of Shahzada Card No. 743 for duplicate medical card by Mr. Abdul Majeed, you met the Sr. Manager (Admn) who immediately ordered issuance of charge‑sheet to Mr. Abdul Majeed which was accordingly issued. In spite of this you went in the Labour Personnel Office and abused Mr. Abdul Majeed. Again on the same day at about 3.50 P. M near Rolling Mill Main Gate inside the factory premises you along with M/s. Abdul Qayyum, Abdul Aziz Khan, Najwali, Akbar Khan and Shamsul Wahab attacked Abdul Majeed and Muhammad Ayaz beat them, inflicted injuries and tried to pull out Shalwar of Abdul Majeed which got torned and he became semi‑naked, the details of which are given in the photo copy of the complaint dated 18‑1‑1983 received from Abdul Majeed and Mohammad Ayaz. The above constituted misconduct as per standing order No‑15 (3) (h) of W.P.I & C.E. (S.Os) Ordinance, 1968. You are therefore, required to submit your written explanation within 2 days of the receipt of this charge‑sheet as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against you". Mr. Yaqoob further submitted that the contents of the above charge-?sheet clearly show the gravity of the misconduct of the accused, workers, so for the sake of justice and fairplay to all the persons alleged to have been involved in the said incident a detailed enquiry was conducted and the proceedings of which were contained on 592 pages and the accused workers were given full opportunity to cross?-examine the prosecution witnesses and to lead evidence in their defence and it is an admitted position on record that none of the accused workmen had ever raised any objection, either on the procedure of the domestic enquiry or on the impartial character of the enquiry officer, therefore, it cannot be said that the domestic enquiry was perverse or biased. Further, it was submitted that the workers had themselves submitted a list of their defence witnesses in which the name of one, Mr. Shamsi was given by them as main and independent witness of the incident but they had themselves not produced him in support of their defence. It was further argued by Mr. S. M Yaqoob that it has been repeatedly held by various Courts, including the superior courts that the employer can proceed with the domestic enquiry involving the same incident without waiting for the decision/ order of the Criminal Court and the domestic action is entirely separate from the criminal proceedings and one would have no bearing on the other even if different conclusions are arrived at, so, subsequent acquittal by the Criminal Court would not have any bearing and would not affect the action of the dismissal taken by the management after due domestic enquiry; therefore it cannot be said that in view of the acquittal of the accused workmen by the criminal court would have any applicability on the proceedings against them on the same offence under the relevant Labour Laws, in a domestic enquiry by the employer. I see no force in any of the contentions of Mr. S. M. Yaqoob the learned representative of the management Corporation. The learned Labour Court has fully examined the evidence and case laws brought before it by both the parties and had passed the impugned order to which I would hold as correct and would maintain the same.

6. As regards the arguments advanced by Mr. Ali Amjad, the learned Advocate on behalf of the workmen, in support of his appeals for the grant of back benefits to the workmen and the setting aside of the order of the learned Labour Court to hold fresh enquiry particularly to examine Mr. Shamsi to the limited reference whether Mr. Abdul Majeed and groups were responsible for creating such abnormal situation, by which the management was embarrassed and there was disorderly behaviour disturbing the case of the industry also have no force as he has nothing to add to what he has submitted before the learned Labour Court. Examination of Mr. Shamsi will not add substantially to the case. It is not necessary. Judicial notice may be taken on Shamsi's evidence in Criminal Court where he has exonerated the three workmen. As regards the back benefits, 3 years have passed and it is not desirable to pay them the back benefits. For the reasons stated by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. Therefore, these six cross appeals are dismissed accordingly. A.E./970/Lb.S. Appeals dismissed.