1984 PLP 1054 (PLC(CS))

Petitioner in person. Asghar Mahmood for Respondent. Date of hearing : 1st November, 1.982. The decision, dated 15th February, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 1, Lahore has been challenged whereby the petition of the respondent given under section 47 of the I. R. O., 1969 for permission to dismiss the petition was accepted.

2. The allegation against the petitioner who was an office‑holder of a registered union was that he went to the Traffic Manager on 11th December, 1977 and asked him to attach Muhammad Jameel conductor with the duty clerk and on the refusal of the Traffic Manager used abusive language. The petitioner was duly charge‑sheeted and an enquiry was held against him. The Traffic Manager supported the prosecution case in the inquiry. The petitioner examined in defence Maqsood Ali, driver who said t fiat no such incident had taken place.

3. These points were raised before the learned lower Court which were correctly replied by the said Court. The petition under section 47 of the

1. R. O., was filed by the District Manager. He was the employer of the petitioner and thus was competent to make the application. This is incorrect that the allegations made against the petitioner' did not constitute misconduct. Using abusive language against an officer amounts to misconduct. This is also incorrect that no opportunity of defence was afforded. Proper opportunity was given and the petitioner actually examined one witness in defence.

4. Before me different points have been raised during arguments. It has been argued that no assistant was allowed to the petitioner during the inquiry. The Enquiry Officer had before proceeding with the case inquired from the petitioner if he had brought his assistant with him and he replied that he would himself defend himself. He however said that he had applied to the management for the appointment of Abdur Razzaq ticket examiner as his assistant but the application had been refused. No such application and order of rejection were called by the petitioner. The objection, therefore, is groundless. The other objection was that copy of inquiry was demanded by means of an application but that application was mistaken as reply to the show‑cause notice. This is wrong. Rather in reply to the show‑cause notice the receipt of copy of inquiry report has been admitted. The third plea is that the Traffic Manager did not repeat the words alleged to have been uttered by the petitioner. The Traffic Manager said that the petitioner used abusive language. This was enough. The repetition of the filthy and rubbish words was not necessary.

5. The respondent had duly proved a prima facie case, which is the requirement of section 47 so permission was rightly accorded. There is no force in the revision, which is dismissed. A. E. Petition dismissed.