1970 PLP 356 (PLC)

This is an appeal against the order of the learned Chairman of the Second West Pakistan Labour Court, Karachi. The impugned order was passed on the 31st of December 1969, on an application under section 38 of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968. The learned Chairman came to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry was fair, just and impartial i and that the misconduct for which the appellant was dismissed from service was not connected with the Industrial Dispute that was pending before the Court. The facts briefly put are these.

2. On 22nd of August 1967, the appellant, who is a Conductor, was on duty on a bus near Sakrand. The bus was checked by Mr. M. J. Abro, along with two others. They found that the appellant had not completed T. T. 2 Form in respect of the tickets from Moro up to the place of checking. He had also not completed the way‑bill. He misbehaved with the Checking Party and refused to give his statement to the Checking Party, He is alleged to have incited the passengers of the bus against the Checking Party. The appellant was charge‑sheeted. The Enquiry Officer after holding the enquiry in the presence of the appellant came to the conclusion that ‑he was guilty of the charges levelled against him.

3. Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi, the learned Representative for the appellant has raised certain points before me which propose to dispose of separately. He contended in the first place that the provision of section 37 of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968 was violated inasmuch as the appellant was not dismissed for any misconduct as defined under section 7 of the Road Transport Workers Ordinance, 1961. This contention has to be looked into in the light of the well‑established principle that a Industrial Tribunal should not interfere with the action of the employer in dismissing a workman after holding an enquiry into alleged misconduct unless it is shown that the employer has no acted in good faith, or that the dismissal amount to victimization or unfair labour practice or employer has been guilty of basic error or violation of the principle of natural justice or on the material the finding is completely baseless or perverse. This i founded on the basis that the enquiry conducted by the employee before the domestic Tribunal was fair and just enquiry. In order that the enquiry may be said to be fair it must be established that all the evidence on which the charges are sought to be prove were produced before the domestic Tribunal and recorded in the presence of the workman and that the Enquiry Officer must record his findings giving his reasons for reaching the conclusion. In the present case, Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi, the learned Representative for the appellant contended that the domestic enquiry was perverse inasmuch as one of the witness before the Enquiry Officer admitted that at the time when the bus was checked it was raining and the roof of the bus was leaking. The suggestion is that the explanation of the appellant that he could not fill in T. T. 2 Form as it was raining should have been accepted. This Court cannot go into the question as to whether) the Enquiry Officer should have accepted the explanation of two Khan appellant. To go into that question would amount to sitting as a Court of appeal over the finding given by the Enquiry Officer But at any rate the appellant was not charge‑sheeted only for) failure to fill in T. T. 2 Form. He was also charge‑sheeted for insubordination and disobedience. It is also misconduct. Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi also contended that the learned Chairman of the Industrial Court has not given any reason for accepting that the charges against the appellant have been made out. It is not for the Industrial Court, when the domestic enquiry, has been held, to give his reasons as to whether the charges levelled against the appellant were well‑founded or not. What he has to see is as to whether the domestic enquiry was fair, rust and impartial and in accordance with the principle of natural justice. If he is satisfied that the conclusion of the domestic Tribunal is not perverse and is in accordance with the principle of natural justice 'he is not required to give his reasons for holding that the workman was guilty of the charges levelled against him.

4. Mr: Wasiullah Qureshi contended that the appellant is not guilty of wilful insubordination or disobedience to any lawful or reasonable order of his superior. "Wilful insubordination" is a very wide term. It would include misbehaviour on the part of a workman. If the workman acts in a haughty and insulting manner towards his superior, this will be covered by the term "wilful insubordination". Mr. Abro who checked the bus of the appellant appeared before the domestic Tribunal. He clearly stated before the Enquiry Officer that the conduct and the behaviour of the appellant was haughty and insulting towards the Checking Party and that he had also tried to excite the passengers against the Checking Party. In a lengthy cross, examination of Mr. Abro, covering 3 to 4 pages, not a single question has been put to Mr. Abro on the charge of insub ordination. There is no suggestion in the cross‑examination of Mr. Abro that he has falsely charged the appellant.

5. Lastly it was contended that the T.T. 40 Form Was not filled at the time when the bus was checked. It was filled admittedly at Sakrand. As a matter of practice the T. T. 40 Form should be filled immediately after they bus is checked. Sakrand is only 1J miles from the place where the bus was checked. It will take 2 to 3 minutes to reach Sakrand. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the T. T.

40. Form was not filled immediately after checking. T. T. 40 Form clearly discloses the charges against the appellant. It is noted therein that the appellant had refused to give his statement as to the charges levelled against him.

6. The learned Chairman has passed a well‑considered order and I do not see any reason to interfere with the same. The appeal is dismissed.