1977 PLP 693(2) (PLC)

(c) Industrial dispute‑

‑‑ Domestic enquiry‑Show‑cause notice and inquiry report supplied to accused‑Dismissal order challenged on plea that inquiry proceedings not supplied‑No suggestion of prejudice on that account --Plea, in circumstances, held, not covered by any legal provision and not sustainable. S. P. Lodhi for Appellant. Mahmood A. Ghani for Respondent. This appeal has been filed against the order of the Labour Court dismissing the application made under section 25‑A, I. R. O.

2. The appellant was in the service of the respondent. He was charge-- sheeted on 21st October, 1975 for misbehaving with a lady worker. He denied the allegation. Inquiry was held and he was found guilty. After show‑cause notice he was dismissed from service. After serving the grievance notice he approached the Labour Court.

3. The application was resisted. Evidence was recorded. On the assessment of the evidence the application was dismissed by the Labour Court. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal was filed.

4. It has been urged on behalf of the appellant that Mr. S. C. Subjally who issued the show‑cause notice charge‑sheet and dismissal order was not an employer within the meaning of section 2 (c) of West Pakistan Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. This plea was also taken in the Labour Court during the course of arguments but it was rejected on the ground that Mr. Subjally was the Manager of the factory and also Manager, Personnel and A Administration. According to the definition, a person named as 'Manager' of the factory under clause (e) of subsection (1) of section 9 of Factories Act is an 'Employer'. Thus the objection raised on behalf of the appellant is unwarranted. Moreover, in this connection it is pointed out that no such plea was taken either in the grievance petition or in the application made under section 25‑A of I. R. O., 1969. Consequently, the objection i could not be entertained by the Labour Court for the first time during the course of arguments. I may also point out that the learned counsel for the respondent has produced a litter of Assistant Director, Labour and Inspector of Factories bowing that Mr. Subjally was notified as Manager in Form 'A' on 3rdJanuary, 1974. The charge‑sheet, in the present case, was served on 21stOctober, 1975. Thus Mr. Subjally was a competent person. 5, It was next argued that the appellant had made a complaint against the lady worker and instead he was charge‑sheeted. This cannot be a valid objection. 6, Lastly, it was argued that inquiry proceedings were not supplied. It is not denied that show‑cause notice and inquiry report wale supplied to the appellant. No provision of law has been painted out requiting the Management to supply the inquiry proceedings. Moreover, it has not pointed out that any prejudice was caused.

7. In the result the appeal is dismissed.