1988 PLP 834 (PLC(CS))

S. Qamaruddin Hassan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 20th December, 1987. DECISION This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 21‑7‑1985 passed by the Sind Labour Court No.III at Karachi, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant claimed, to be a permanent workman in the respondent establishment and also an office‑bearer of the C. B. A. Union and that soon after a settlement arrived at between the C.B.A. Union and the management of the respondents in the year 1982, differences had incurred and disputes arose with regard to the implementation of the said settlement. The appellant claimed that the respondent‑management used to threaten the workers and the members of the C.B.A. Union, and as he was an active worker of the union, therefore, the management was annoyed with him and was inclined to get rid of him. Therefore, as per claim of the appellant, he was served with a fake and false charge‑sheet on 12‑5‑1983, and though he had satisfactorily replied to the same, yet, a domestic enquiry was held in an improper, unjust, illegal and biased manner in which the enquiry officer had openly acted as a Prosecutor and he was not afforded an opportunity to lead his defence, resulting in the dismissal from his services. He, therefore, being aggrieved with this action of the respondent‑establishment had served a grievance notice upon the respondent‑establishment on 26‑9‑1983 followed by a grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969 before the learned Labour Court. 3. The respondent‑establishment resisted the petition on the grounds that as the appellant alongwith two other co‑workers waylaid one Sarwar Mohiuddin, Manager, Finishing Department of the establishment at about 4‑35 p.m. on 17‑4‑1983 at a distance of about 20 yards from the main gate of the factory and that they gave him severe. beating with fists and blows and on account 9f intervention by some passersly, the said Manager was rescued by them whereby inflicting grievous injuries on his left little finger, lower lip as well as his teeths, therefore, the appellants and his co‑workers were challaned by the S.I.T.E. Police to face the criminal trials. The respondent establishment further claimed that in view of these gross misconduct, they had issued a proper charge‑sheet to the appellant and as his reply was found unsatisfactory, therefore, a proper, impartial and lawful enquiry was held against him in which the appellant was afforded full opportunity to defend as he had cross‑examined each and every prosecution witness and produce his defence as well as had signed every paper of the enquiry proceedings. The respondent establishment claimed that the enquiry officer found him guilty of the said misconduct, so, the appellant was rightly dismissed from service and it was not correct that the establishment had any enmity or bias against the appellant on Account of his trade union activities. Therefore, they claimed that in view of these facts the appellant was not entitled to maintain his grievance petition under section 25‑A, I . R . O . 1969, which was liable to be dismissed 4. Both the parties led their respective evidence and they were duly cross‑examined. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order, hence, the present appeal. 5. I have heard Mr. M.L. Shahani, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. S. Qamaruddin Hassan, the learned .Advocate on behalf of the respondent establishment and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. At the very outset, I would hold that the impugned order is well reasoned and thoroughly discussed and there is nothing wrong in it. It is an admitted position that there is nothing on record to establish that Sarwar Mohiuddin had any enmity to falsely implicate an innocent man for injuries received by him and his evidence is fully corroborated by the other witnesses. There is also a certified copy of the F.I.R. No‑55 of 1983 on the record to support the version of Sarwar Mohiuddin and it further fully proved that the appellant was challaned and proceeded with the offence. From the record it is crystle proved that a proper enquiry was held against the appellant in which his guilt was established and in view of these proceedings, he was rightly dismissed from service. There is nothing on record to prove any mala fides or victimization on the part of the respondent establishment. All requirements of Law A were fulfilled by the respondent management before dismissing the appellant from his service. Therefore, he was not entitled to maintain his grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969, which was rightly dismissed by the learned Labour Court. 6. For the reasons discussed by me above, I see no. reason to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. The present appeal, is accordingly dismissed. A.E./1137/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.