1995 PLP 663 (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑‑S.O. 15(3)‑‑‑Misconduct‑‑‑Dismissal from service‑‑‑Employee working as conductor, was dismissed from service after issuing him charge‑sheet and holding enquiry against him on ground that he failed to comply with message/order of District Manager who wanted to see employee‑‑‑Such message/order actually was sent by Duty Officer and was conveyed orally to employee and not in writing‑‑‑It was not known what was that order and in what language it was repeated by Duty Officer and what actual words were used by messenger of Duty Officer who delivered that message‑‑‑It had not been proved that alleged disobedience of employee was wilful and order of District Manager conveyed to him through Duty Officer was lawful and reasonable‑‑‑In any case a person could not be deprived of his livelihood merely by non‑compliance of a vague order of employer conveyed to employee after duty hours‑‑‑Employee thus, was rightly re‑instated with back benefits. Azmatullah Khan, Representative for Appellant. S.P. Lodhi, Representative for Respondents. Date of hearing: 22nd May, 1995. This appeal by the District Manager, K.T.C. arises from order of the Fourth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, reinstating the respondent workman with full back benefits.

2. The facts in brief are that the respondent was working as a conductor at Mehran Depot of the K.T.C. It is said that after the respondent returned from his duty to hand over the cash he was given a message that the District Manager wanted to see him. This message was actually sent by the Duty Officer and it was conveyed orally to the respondent. Admittedly this order was not in writing. It is not known what was the order of the District Manager and in what language it was repeated by Duty Officer and what actual words were used by the messenger of the Duty Officer delivering the message. The respondent did not comply with this order. He was therefore charge‑sheeted on 13‑2‑1992 and after domestic enquiry he was dismissed. The Enquiry Officer did not examine the District Manager regarding this order and till this day it is not known for what reason the respondent was being summoned. He was admittedly not on duty when he was called.

3. Misconduct has been defined under section 15 of Standing Orders Ordinance to be disobedience whether alone or in combination with others to any lawful and reasonable order of a superior. In this case there is only a solitary instance of alleged disobedience and the actual wordings of the order are not known. It cannot therefore be judged whether the order was lawful and reasonable. The respondent is said to have worked on that day from 6‑00 a.m. till 1‑00 p.m. and he was given the message at 4‑15 p.m. Possibly he was too tired or had some other important work to attend to. It has not therefore been proved that the disobedience was wilful and the order was reasonable. In any case a person cannot be deprived of his livelihood merely by non‑compliance of a vague order after duty hours. The respondent has been ordered by the Labour Court to be reinstated with full back benefits. I cannot find any reasons to interfere with this order. The order is therefore maintained and the appeal' is dismissed. H.B.T./2479/Lb.S? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.