1978 PLP 347 (PLC)

3. The application was resisted and it was pleaded that the respondent had misconducted and he was found guilty of the misconduct after proper inquiry and, therefore, no exception could be taken to the termination of his service.

4. Evidence was recorded in the Labour Court. On the assessment of the evidence the learned Presiding Officer mainly relied upon the evidence of Mr. Abdul Hamid, Personnel Officer, and held that the act of the respon dent did not amount to misconduct within the meaning of Standing Order No. 15(3)(x) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance. but it fill under Standing Order No. 15(1)(it)(b) of the Ordinance which provided only a minor penalty. On the basis of this view, he passed the impugned order. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal had been filed.

5. On perusal of the record and proceedings and hearing the arguments I am unable to support the view taken by the learned Presiding Officer. He clearly erred in coming to the conclusion that the action of the respondent did not amount to misconduct deserving dismissal. The evidence of the Personnel Officer reproduced by the Presiding Officer in the impugned order reads as under: "I am the Personnel Officer of the Inn. On 28th June, 19776 at about 10 a. m. Mr. Mehmood and Mr. Yameen, Kitchen helper came to my office in an angry mood and placed on my table a salary slip. Mr. Mehmood angrily asked me as to why the allowance of Mr. Yameen had been deducted. As Mr. Mehmood showed anger, I asked him whether the case was that of Mr. Yameen or his. As it was Yameen case I told him to leave the slip and the man so that I will deal with the matter. Mr. Mehmood replied in the negative. I am the Vice-President of the Union and as such it i s my right to demand from you as to why the Yameen's allowance had been deducted. I told him to go and leave Yameen alone and I will deal with it, because this is a routine matter, and there is no need for any one else's interference. I insisted that he should have my office whereas he was insisting to stay. He said, "Do you want to harm the Union?" I replied that you have no right to bring every one routine matters into my office. I informed him that the old days are over when in official routine matters interference from any body from the Union side will be tolerated. This is not the time of my predecessor, Mr. Abu Shama and to forget that time. On this Mr. Mebmood said that Abu Shama has gone and in the same manner I can have thrown out from your job in a minutes time. Turing this period there was argument on both sides and we both were in temper. I Insisted that he should go but he would not its quite a lot of bitterness had been created. I put my band on big shoulder and requested him to leave the office as there had been unnecessary heated arguments. He went to the room next to my office where my staff work. There again I advised him that these are routine matters and no need for others to pressurise me. He cooled down and so did I and thereafter he left my office" After the aforesaid reproduction the learned Presiding Officer proceeded to make big own observation which is contain i in paragraph 10 of the main order and it reads as under: "

10. From the recital of the above statement it is clear that there was a past practice of officials of Union approaching the Personnel Officer. in respect of personal grievances of the workers. The present Personnel Officer took an exception to it culminating into this unfortunate situation. One thing, which is, however, clear that it was the Personnel Officer who initiated the whole trouble by quoting the dais of his predecessor, Mr. Abu Shama. He was the person who placed his bands on the shoulder of the applicant (Obviously in an attempt to turn him out)." Thereafter the learned Presiding Officer discussed the provisions of the Standing Order No. 15 and expressed his final view.

6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the portion of the evidence of the Personnel Officer, as reproduced above and there can be no manner of doubt that the respondent is guilty of misconduct. He entered the office of the Personnel Officer without any permission from him. Indeed this may not be very material but what is objectionable is that he was In an angry mood when he entered the office. He behaved rudely towards his superior officer. When he was directed to leave the matter to be dealt with in the ordinary course, he became obstinate to stay on and showed his insolence, which is certainly open to grave exception and cannot be ignored. The conduct of the respondent throughout was highly objectionable and he was clearly guilty of misconduct.

7. Referring to para 10 of the impugned order of the learned Presiding Officer I must say that he proceeded to draw an Incorrect conclusion from the evidence of the Personnel Officer. He observed that it was the Personnel Officer who had initiated the whole trouble by quoting the days of his predecessor. I am not able to understand that this was a matter, which could be responsible for creating the trouble. The learned Presiding Officer completely forgot that the respondent was in an angry mood when he had entered the office and behaved rudely when he talked to the Personnel Officer. So the respondent himself was responsible for the trouble and not the Personnel Officer. The exception taken by the Personal Officer to the previous practice cannot be open to any objection. Any officer is entitled to maintain discipline and dignity. It has nowhere been provided that the Vic President was competent to accompany an aggrieved pets -in and plead his cause Of course, an aggrieved person can approach the higher authority through the Union but it must be in writing as laid down by section 25-A. I. R. O. The learned Presiding Officer also pointed out that placing of the hands by the Personnel Officer on the shoulder of the respondent was obviously an attempt to turn him out. I find nothing in the evidence to support this unwarranted suggestion. On the contrary, the Personnel Officer stated that he requested him to leave the office. So there was a request and not a force used to turn out the respondent.

8. It was, however, conceded by the learned Presiding Officer that the respondent was guilty of misbehaviour, but he applied a different clause of Standing Order No.

15. In my view, this is also not supportable. In this connection l would like to refer to the observation made by my learned predecessor in the case of Ghulam Rasool Khan v. The District Manager, Government Transport Service ((1966) 1 L L J 289) The relevant observation reads as under. "'Wilful insubordination' is a very wide term. If the workman acts in a haughty and insulting manner towards his superior, this will be covered by the term 'wilful insubordination'."

9. I would also like to refer to another pertinent observation made by the High Court of Bombay in the case of Jai Chand Bansal v. Industrial Tribunal and another (2), which reads as under: "Even though he (the employee) happened to occupy what he considered to be the august position of the Vice-President of the Union, he did not cease to be an employee of the appellant and the attempt to distinguish between his capacity as the steno typist end his capacity as the Vice-President of the Union was absolutely puerile. He ought to have realized that he was first and foremost an employee of the appellant and owed a duty to the appellant to answer all the queries which had been addressed to him by the General Manger His evasion to give such replies on the pretext of shielding himself under his capacity as the Vice-President of the Union wag absolutely unjustified and if such insubordination and breach of discipline had been the subject-matter of the charges made against him, we do not see how the respondent could have escaped the punishment of dismissal"

10. In the circumstances I am unable to share the view taken by the learned Presiding Officer. The respondent was found guilty of misconduct as had been held by the Inquiry Officer. I would like to emphasize that the respondent enjoyed a responsible position, being a Vice-President of the Union, he ought to have behaved in a most respectful manner in order to set an example for others in the maintenance of discipline and smooth working of the industry. Consequently, the dismissal of the respondent is not open to any exception.

11. In the circumstances the appeal is allowed and order of the Labour Court is set aside. The application made under section 25-A, I. R. O. stands dismissed.