1994 PLP 655 (PLC(CS))

3. Replies were furnished but as the same were not found to be satisfactory enquiry letters were issued and separate enquiries were taken up. In both the proceedings there was a change of enquiry officers as it was found that they were witnesses in a proceeding before the N.I.R.C: and S.M. Iqbal Oadri came to replace them. Apart from Nizamuddin who was the complainant two witnesses each were examined in both these proceedings. The petitioners however did not choose to produce and witness on their own.

4. As the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer had found them guilty of misconduct both of them were dismissed on 7‑2‑1991. However, the order in regard to the dismissal of Muhammad Nasim came to be withdrawn on 11‑2‑1991 as he was an office‑bearer of the Union and was protected by section 47(2) of the IRO. The dismissal came on 26‑3‑1991 as in the meantime the industrial dispute had been disposed of.

5. Both of them had served grievance notices and later filed petitions before the Labour Court.

6. The petitions came to be resisted by the respondents and all the allegations came to be denied.

7. The Labour Court for reasons given by it dismissed the petition resulting in these appeals.

8. It is to be seen that Muhammad Nasim in his reply to the charge‑sheet had the following to say:‑‑ "That the actual fact was that due to injustice and discrimination done by your Management in report of two Foremen of Ampule Department and their transfer to Vial Section mala fidely there was great unrest amongst the workers including the female workers and they were perturbed and wanted explanation from the Union Officers who had announced General Body Meeting and after close of duty they had staged out of their own free will. That the slogans raised for unity of workers and this cannot be said to be objectionable as it is the right of the workers. That I say that you have not disclosed as to how the slogan raising and the imaginary demonstration by any dint of imagination can be termed as aiming at coercing and pressurizing the Management for the purpose of acceptance of withdrawal of transfer order of three workers of Ampule Finishing Department. That it is false to say that after coming of Mr. Jahangir Azar to the factory, Officers and‑ female staff was allowed to leave the Factory at 6‑00 P.M. and 7‑00 P.M, respectively." 8‑A He also admitted in the cross‑examination that as a result of the transfer of Haseebullah and Nawab Khan the workers were not happy.

9. Even Salamatullah in the cross‑examination, was hesitant about Azar's arrival but in the next breath admitted a meeting with him at 6‑00 P.M.

10. Jehangir Azar was examined in both the proceedings and mentions that he had found the lady workers in the "Gherao" of the office‑bearers; and that they were allowed to leave home on his intervention, as he had promised to do his best to get the matters settled with the management to their satisfaction. There is no reason whatsoever to suspect the version 'furnished by him. Otherwise too the circumstances also lend their support to what has been spoken by him.

11. The enquiry proceedings were very fair and proper.' The petitioners were given co‑workers of their choice. All the pages are duly signed and there is not a word of reproach against the Enquiry Officers.

12. The circumstances clearly indicate that the workers had re‑acted to the transfer of the foremen including the appellants and had resorted to rowdy behaviour to force the respondents to rescind the orders. The orders of transfer which are an ordinary incidence of employment did not call for such a display of passions. The heat generated and the "Gherao" undeniably constitute a clear case of misconduct.

13. Under the circumstances the impugned orders need no interference and are upheld. As a consequence both these appeals stand dismissed. H.B.T./2322/Lb.S Appeals dismissed.