1984 PLP 1429 (PLC(CS))

‑‑ S. O. 15 (3) (n)‑Abusing during working hours at establishment‑--Held, a disorderly behaviour and an act subversise of discipline and as a misconduct. (b) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑

‑‑ S. O. 15 (4)‑‑Service of second show‑cause notice‑Held, neces sary only in cases where extraneous matter comes on record and it is considered necessary to bring it to notice of employer before passing order of punishment. Mian Muhammad Yasin for Appellant. Ch. Anwar Ali for Respondent. Date of hearing: 10th February, 1982. This appeal arises from the decision, dated 19th July, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent for his re‑instatement was accepted with full back benefits.

2. Shan Muhammad, respondent, was helper Furnace Man. He was charge‑sheeted for abusing Taj Din Mistri and refused to carry out his order. After holding at enquiry he was dismissed from service vide order, copy of which is Exh. P.

5. The lower Court has reinstated the respondent only on the solitary ground that no second show‑cause notice was given to him. The learned counsel argued that Taj Din Mistri was not the incharge of the respondent, therefore, refusal on the part of the respondent to obey the order of Taj Din did not amount to misconduct. He has also argued that giving of second show‑cause notice was necessary. This is true that there is nothing on the record to show that Tai Din was the boss or the incharge of the respondent, but the allegation against the respondent was not only that he had disobeyed the order of Tai Din, but it was also alleged that he had abused him. Abusing another person during working hours amounts to disorderly behaviour during working hours at the establishment and also an act subversive of discipline, which is misconduct, according to clause (h) of Standing Order 15 (3) of the A Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. So I do not find any force in the arguments of the learned counsel that the respondent did not commit any misconduct. So far as the second point is concerned, there also I do not agree with the learned counsel for the respondent. The phraseology of clause (4) of Standing Order 15 does not show that service of second show‑cause notice is necessary. In this respect support may be taken from P L D 1981 S C

225. Of course ‑ in the cases where some extraneous matter comes on the record, it may be necessary to bring it to the notice of the employee concerned before passing the order of punishment. So in B such cases service of second show‑cause notice may be deemed to be necessary. The learned lower Court, therefore, wrongly held that service of second show‑cause notice was necessary. I, therefore, accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the lower Court, dismiss the grievance petition of the respondent. M. Y. M. Appeal accepted.