1989 PLP 171 (PLC)

‑‑‑S.O. 15‑‑"Misconduct"‑‑Workman ordered to work in B‑Shift instead of Shift‑‑Workman asking for written order and disclosure of name of authority by whom such change was made‑‑Such demand of workman, held, did not amount to misconduct. Muhammad Azam for Appellant. Muhammad Akram for Respondent. Date of hearing: 7th September, 1987. This is an appeal lodged against the decision dated 30‑4‑1987 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad directing the reinstatement of the respondent in service with all back benefits.

2. The allegations for which the respondent was dismissed from service were that he was ordered to work in B‑shift by the production manager under the 41 instructions of the Managing Director but he refused stating that he would attend A‑shift on 24‑8‑19844, and would work in B ‑shift on 25‑8‑1984 if a separate memo. for the same had been issued to him so that he could approach the Chairman, Minister for Production and Martial Law Authorities and further that he be ordered in the register for giving duty in B‑shift indicating the name of the officer who changed his duty so that the irregular directions and orders may remain on the record for the examination of P.I.D.C., higher authorities and Martial Law Authorities. It is also mentioned in the charge‑sheet that he was informed that under the shift rotation system the respondent was ordered to work in B‑shift and not by the Managing Director, that the Managing Director had told the respondent that on the written request of Mr. Muhammad Rafiq, Assistant Internal Auditor, he was transferred to B‑shift and not by way of victimization. It is also mentioned in the charge‑sheet that the respondent did wilful insubordination and disobedience of lawful and legal order of his incharge, that he put false, baseless and frivolous allegations against the Chief Executive of the company, was guilty of breach of disciplinary rules and regulations and had misused office stationery and wasted time during working hours. In the charge sheet the false, baseless and frivolous allegations alleged to have been made by the respondent have not been explained by reproducing the said frivolous allegations. The particulars of office stationery are not given in the charge‑sheet. If the respondent had demanded written order and disclosure of the name of the authority who had changed his shift, it did not amount to misconduct. Always a written order is given. If the respondent was guilty of disobeying rules and regulations, it was covered by Standing Order 15(1)(ii) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 for which the punishment is fine upto three paisas in the rupee of the wages payable in a month. The particulars of the so‑called frivolous allegations made against the Chief Executive are not given therefore; the charge sheet in this respect is defective. Giving of particulars of the stationery alleged to have been wasted by the respondent was also necessary so as to give full information to the respondent of the specific allegation in that respect. In. these circumstances the learned lower Court has rightly held that the allegations disclosed in the charge‑sheet did not amount to misconduct.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel that if the charge‑sheet was defective, back benefits should not have been allowed. I do not find any force in this argument. Since the very allegations did not amount to misconduct, therefore, the very order of dismissal was illegal and thus the respondent was entitled to back benefits if during the period of dismissal he had remained jobless. The respondent in his statement asserting that right from the date of his dismissal A he was jobless. He was thus rightly allowed back benefits.

4. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. A.E./411/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.