1996 PLP 339 (PLC(CS))

Ashraf Hussain Rizvi for Appellant. Date of hearing: 21st December, 1995. This appeal is directed against the order of the VIth Labour Court, Hyderabad, whereby the order of dismissal of the appellant dated 21‑10‑1993 was maintained and the grievance, petition for re‑instatement was dismissed.

2. The facts in brief are that the appellant was employed as an Assistant in the Office of the Regional Manager of the respondent company at Hyderabad. He was transferred from Hyderabad to Multan on 1‑8‑1993. He did not hand over charge but filed a petition before the N.I.R.C. The N.I.R.C. issued Prohibitory Order against the employers. Meanwhile the appellant was served with the charge‑sheet and an enquiry was held against him. After about 17 months the N.I.R.C. dismissed the petition filed by the appellant and in the domestic enquiry the appellant was dismissed from service. The appellant challenged his dismissal and filed grievance petition before the Labour Court, Hyderabad.

3. His first grievance was that he had no knowledge of any enquiry against him, but it was discovered that the enquiry had been adjourned for hearing at the request of the appellant himself. The next objection raised was that the copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to him but it was found that the appellant had defied the enquiry proceedings and not taken any part in the enquiry and no prejudice was caused by non‑supply of the enquiry report as held in 1981 SCMR

631. The learned Labour Court found that throughout the proceedings the conduct of the appellant revealed highhandedness, carelessness and disobedience. He refused to obey the Transfer Orders for Multan on one pretext or the other and openly disobeyed the management. That no case of re instatement in setting aside of the order of dismissal was made out and the grievance petition was therefore dismissed.

4. In the course of this appeal also the same arguments have been repeated but they do not appear to be genuine non-convincing. The appellant is still in the move to fight the management because of the order of transfer from Hyderabad to Multan. If the appellant instead of rushing to N.I.R.C. should have moved the employer showing his inability, on account of domestic problems, his case might have been considered sympathetically; but mere fight does not solve the problem. The employees should also learn to be respectful and obedient to the management.

5. I can find no substance in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. H.B.T./1/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.