1998 PLP 385 (PLC)

M.A. Khadim for the Employee. Date of hearing: 14th October, 1997 By this judgment I propose to dispose of the two cross-appeals, captioned above, one having been filed by the erstwhile employee and the other by the concern against the old employee, the matter being one and the same. The learned Labour Court No.4, Faisalabad, presided over then by Peer Akhtar Hussain Bodla, had on 28-11-1994 dismissed Abdul Salam's grievance petition filed under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 burdening the concern, at the same time, to the tune of Rs.50,000 as compensation.

2. Abdul Salam was initially employed as Process Operator in Grade II and got promotion to a post in Grade-IV, in due course. He was, however, served with a show-cause notice on 14-1-1991, on the basis of some report having been made against him by Mr. Abdul Ghani, Process Manager. Reply was furnished before the issuing Authority, namely, Personnel/Factory Manager. The reply as declared as unsatisfactory and Abdul Salam was dismissed from service on 19-8-1992, allegedly on proof of charge of misconduct. Abdul Salam states to have served the Managing Director/Chief Executive for the concern with a grievance notice on 23-8-1992, and as there was no response, he filed a grievance petition in the Labour Court on 9-9-1992.

3. It was maintained by the superiors that they had conducted the domestic enquiry against the employee strictly in accordance with the relevant rules and regulations and in a fair and impartial manner. Abdul Salam, however, urged, that the enquiry against him was initiated and conducted in a partisan and prejudiced fashion and result of the same could well be anticipated, as it could be taken as a fore-gone conclusion that he would be removed from service, as he was the executive member of the C.B.A. Union and had also been nominated as a member of the Factory Management Committee. He was intended to be victimised, so as to punish him for his trade union activities, which development could also have deterring effect on the trade unionists. Mr. Liaqat Ali Rana conducted the enquiry, and he was succeeded by Mr. Iftikhar Hussan, Internal Auditor, who submitted enquiry proceedings Exh.R-2 and the enquiry report R-15, on the basis of which it was deduced that he had been guilty of insubordination and disobedience of his superiors.

4. I have carefully gone through the proceedings and the report of enquiry and the judgment" rendered by the learned Labour Court. The allegation against the employee was that he had wilfully and contumaciously disobeyed directions of his seniors, and this amounted to misconduct, within the meaning of Standing Order 15(3)(a) and (h), and was liable to ouster from service. His detailed explanation is contained in the document Exh.P-4, which embodies a number of counter allegations against the officers. Rana Iftikhar Hussain, Personnel Officer of the Factory, and Mr. Asghar Ali, Senior Clerk, Labour Department, Faisalabad had appeared as witnesses against the official, who had examined as many as 8 witnesses in defence. It, is not absolutely clear as to how had Abdul Salam committed disregard or disobedience of directions and orders of his superiors and how could the explanation furnished by him and the counter allegations levelled by him can be brushed aside as baseless. His own stand-point of the subject did note indeed sound to be a faulty explanation of an insolent or obnoxious subordinate. The employee is required and expected to obey and carry out only valid and proper orders of his seniors. It cannot be assumed that the latter category must be taken to be always immune and free from personal prejudices and disliking for a particular person and an element of sarcasm or hostility. It is also not understood as to how did the employee stand to gain anything by being disobedient or disloyal to his superiors. His interest, on the contrary, was to maintain good relations with all those who mattered, so that, his service could be secured. It has been observed by the learned Presiding Officer of the lower Court that the relations between Abdul Salam and Management had not been cordial. The situation reflected therefore that the action against Abdul Salam could well be launched and carried to conclusion in an unfair way, and 'superiors' could naturally be disposed against him and interested in his elimination. Orders all might not have been relished, but could riot be contravened or flouted deliberately, by this person, who had put in several years of service and was always found to be a well, behaved and skilled worker. He had even earned annual increments and got promotions throughout his career. Trade unionists do undermine discipline m industrial establishments and their leaders do have their sway, in a bid to incite the workers and foment trouble; but it has essentially to be seen if a particular employee or worker has become a tool in the hands of such unscrupulous and unruly elements/leaders. 5.? A perusal of show-cause notice Exh.P-3 and the reply Exh.P-4 would leave little doubt about the fact that both sides might have been erratic, in certain degree, but the blame could not entirely be put on the shoulders of the employee, for deterioration in the relations between the management and the working class. The explanation furnished by Abdul Salam also presented a convincing picture of the situation and served to show that he had a good justification for telling his superiors that they were not all just, fair and logical, in issuing him commands, some of which were certainly not conducive to good administrations as also factory production; but the Management was being misled in the matter and Abdtxl Salam appeared to have been made a victim of vindictiveness by his superiors.

6. The learned lower Court has made an observation, which requires an objective appraisal and a realistic realisation. It has been said that it would not be proper to thrust such an employee upon an unwilling employer and it has even been expressed that the establishment would be at liberty to proceed against the employee, in accordance with the mode provided by law. It follows that the impugned action against the employee was not entirely attended by compliance of legal requirements and fulfilment of moral obligations, on the part of the employer, and the Court below had gathered the impression that somehow the establishment had got displeased or annoyed with this official, and did not want to retain him on their strength. The next part of the order also establishes that the employee was being wronged and required to be compensate, in a large measure. The argument advanced by the learned Labour Court in this regard appears to be manifestly unconvincing, infirm and frail. In pondering over the whole matter, this forum finds it really difficult to see eye to eye with the verdict ultimately rendered by the lower Court.

7. I have come to the conclusion that Abdul Salam had been proceeded against and punished, with ouster from service, on no valid premises, by the concern. On the contrary, there will be ample justification available for pronouncing a decision in favour of employee and against the employer and for remitting the heavy amount of compensation. I would consequently accept both the appeals. Abdul Salam shall immediately be reinstated in service, and the concern shall also concede to him half of the back benefits, for the period he has remained out of service. There shall, however, be no order as to costs of this litigation. H.B.T./913/Lb.P ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????Appeal accepted.