1982 PLP 815 (PLC(CS))

Riaz Hussain Baloch for Appellants. Respondent in person. Date of hearing: 7th February, 1982. The respondent, who was employed as a winder in the Star Textile Mills Ltd., the appellants herein, was provided with a quarter in the mills colony under a licence which specifically provided that whenever required to do so by the appellant company, he would forthwith quit and deliver possession of the quarter to the company, even if he still was in the employ ment of the company. On 17th February, 1981 the respondent was served with a letter by the appellant company, requiring him to vacate within a week Quarter No. 6/A in his possession. The letter contained the threat that if he failed to vacate the quarter within the stipulated time necessary legal action would be taken against him. As the respondent failed to vacate the quarter in question he was served with a show‑cause notice on 1st March, 1981. The explanation of the respondent to the said show‑cause notice was not found satisfactory by the management and his request for the withdrawal of the order requiring him to vacate the quarter in his possession was turned down. A domestic enquiry was, thereafter, held against the respondent and on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer, who found the respondent guilty of wilful dis obeying a lawful and reasonable order of the company, the respondent was dismissed from service, vide order, dated 10th June, 1981. The res pondent challenged the order of his dismissal before the learned 3rd Labour Court which has taken the view that the order of the manage ment directing the respondent to vacate the quarter in his possession does not fall within the purview of Standing Order 15 and hence the order of dismissal of the respondent by the management was illegal and could not be sustained. This finding of the learned Labour Court was based on his view that an order can only fall ‑‑thin the purview of Standing Order 15 if it is given to a workman in the discharge of his normal duties, while the order given to the respondent to vacate the quarter in question was outside the scope of his normal duties and hence the question of wilful disobedience of such order does not arise. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant company has come up in appeal to this Tribunal.

2. I have heard Mr. Riaz Hussain Baloch, who appeared for the appellant company, while the respondent, who w4s un‑represented, appeared in person.

3. It is an admitted position that the quarter provided to the res pondent by the company was given to him under an indenture of licence, dated 17th February, 1978, which indenture bears the signature of the respondent. Clause 18 of the said licence reads as follows:‑ "

18. The Licensee will be deemed to reside in the Quarter only on sufferance. The Company shall be entitled at its discretion to cancel the Leave and Licence hereby granted to the Licensee to reside in the Quarter, without assigning any reason, whatsoever, even if he is still an employee of the Company, and the Licensee when called upon to do so by the Company shall forthwith quit and deliver to the Company peacefully the vacant possession of the Quarter." The aforesaid clause gives an absolute right to the company to require the Licensee to vacate the quarter given to him even during the continuance of the employment with the company. As such the appellant company was within its legal right to require the respondent to vacate the quarter in question. This was not only a lawful order but was also a reasonable order as the quarter was given to the respondent by the appellant company on the specific understanding that he would vacate the same whenever required to do so by the company notwithstanding the fact that he continued in the employment of the company. As the quarter was given to the respondent by reason of his being employed by the appellant company, the order of the company requiring him to vacate the quarter was also within the scope of the terms of his employ ment. A company may require a workman to vacate a quarter for a variety of reasons, such as the quarter may be required for another pur pose or it may require repairs or re‑construction, or some other worker may have a better or preferential claim to it or the workman occupying the quarter may have mis‑used the quarter or the facilities provided therein. The company, however, under the terms of the Licence was not bound to disclose its reasons for requiring the respondent to vacate the quarter. No adverse inference can thus, be drawn against the company for failing to disclose its reasons in this behalf. It was not one of the terms and conditions of the employment of the respondent that he would be provided with a quarter, The providing of the quarter by the company to the respondent, thus was an additional facility which could be withdrawn by the company at any time in its sole discretion without assigning any reason. The refusal on the part of the respondent, therefore to comply with the order of the company, requiring him to' vacate the quarter constituted disobedience of the lawful and reasonable orders of his superiors and fell within the mischief of item (a) of Claus (3) of Standing Order

15. I am fortified in my view by a decision o the Industrial Court, East Pakistan, Messrs Carew and Co. Ltd. v. East Pakistan Sugar Mills Employees' Union (1961 P L C 751). In the reported case as in the present case, the workman refused to vacate a room, which was given to him on the express understanding that he would vacate the same whenever required by the management. The plea raised by 'he workman in the reported case was that some alternate accommodation should be provided to him before he was asked to vacate. This plea, not having found favour with the management, be was dismissed from service after holding of a domestic enquiry. Upholding the orders of the workman's dismissal, the Industrial Court, East Pakistan, observed that it was time that people honour their own undertakings and com mitments.

4. The learned Labour Court in the impugned decision has observed that once a worker has been given a quarter by the management, it can not be taken away from him except in the manner, provided in Standing Order

16. The learned Labour Court appears to have lost sight of the fact that the application of Standing Order 16 is restricted to those cases where the relationship of employer and employee comes to an end. It was pointed out by this Tribunal in the case of Rohri Cement Works v. Israr Khan and others (1980 P L C 879) that one of the preconditions for the application of and the taking of action under Standing Order 16 is that the workman should have been retrenched, discharged, dismissed or his services should otherwise have been terminated. In the instant case, as at the time the] respondent was required to vacate the quarter in his possession he continued to be in the employment of the appellant company, the provision of Standing Order 16 were clearly in applicable to his case.

5. For the reasons discussed by me above. I would set aside the impugned decision of the learned Labour Court, uphold the dismissal of the respondent workman and allow the appeal.