1996 PLP 234 (PLC)

Abdus Samad for Appellant. Ehsan Elahi, Representative for Respondent. Date of hearing: 13th November, 1995. This appeal by Steel Mills is directed against the order of the Fourth Sindh Labour Court, allowing the grievance petition of the respondent under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. and passing orders for his re‑instatement.

2. The respondent Syed Ali Imam Rizvi was a mechanic in Pakistan Steel Mills. The charge against him was that on 19‑4‑1993Auring the duty hours he indulged in disorderly behaviour inside the mills premises, raised political slogans, used abusive language against the guards on duty and also against the management and the Chairman. The respondent was therefore suspended and a domestic enquiry was ordered against him. He was found guilty and dismissal order was passed against him. He then filed his grievance petition which has been allowed by the Sindh Labour Court No. 4, Karachi and he has been ordered to be re‑instated in service with full back benefits.

3. The learned Labour Court found the charge to be vague and not specific and found the political slogans to be harmless. The question here however is not of belonging to a particular political party or advocating the cause of one party and abusing the other. It is not the business of the workers to indulge in political wrangling or behaving in objectionable manner by insulting the management or the Chairman. The charge is of disorderly behaviour under Standing Order 15(3)(h) and this has been established.

4. The learned Advocate for the management has argued that slogans raising and abusing by a workman is by itself a misconduct and the question of the Steel Mills not suffering any pecuniary loss on that account does not arise. He has further argued that the question of second show‑cause notice being given or not is of no consequence as it has been held in the decision of Supreme Court reported in PLD 1991 SC 225 that not giving of second show‑cause notice does not vitiate the enquiry proceedings unless prejudice is thereby caused to the accused. The learned Advocate has then argued that the action is in accordance with law and the enquiry has been conducted, keeping in view the legal requirements.

5. Mr. Ehsan Ellahi for the respondent has on the other hand argued that the charge is not specific. The actual slogans or the filthy language used, have not been mentioned and it has not therefore been proved whether the offence of misconduct was committed by the accused. However if the behaviour of the workman in itself is disorderly, it is immaterial what language he has used or which party he has sided. He has no business to bring his politics inside the mill premises and he can keep his politics to himself. Orderly behaviour is expected of him during duty hours within the premises. There is no defect in the proceedings and he has been found guilty in the domestic enquiry. The order of the Labour Court is accordingly set aside and the appeal of‑the management of the Steel Mill is allowed. H.B.T./2570/Lb.S Appeal allowed.