' The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the petitioner was appointed as Sanitary Worker on 1-8-1981. Allegedly his services were terminated by the respondents vide order dated 5-12-1992 on the ground that the petitioner absented himself from duty without securing leave from the respondents. The petitioner allegedly sent leave application to the respondents from the village. The petitioner returned from the village after attending his ailing daughter on 28-10-1992 who has been operated upon in the month of August. The respondents refused to allow the petitioner to join the service. The petitioner being aggrieved sent a grievance notice to the respondents on 19-11-1992. The respondents did not reply the grievance notice to the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved filed a grievance petition before the Punjab Labour Court No.VII, Gujranwala under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, who dismissed the same vide order dated 4-4-1998. The petitioner being aggrieved filed an appeal before the Punjab Labuor Appellate Tribunal, who dismissed the same vide judgment dated 7-5-2002. Hence, the present writ petition.
2. Learned counsel of the petitioner submits that both the Tribunals below erred in law to non-suit the petitioner without application of their independent mind and in fact the judgments of both the Tribunals below are result of misreading and non-reading of the record. He further submits that respondents terminated the service of the petitioner without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without providing proper hearing to the petitioner and without issuing a charge-sheet to the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel of the respondents submit that petitioner has filed wrong affidavit. The petitioner's daughter was operated upon in August, 1992. The petitioner had gone to attend his ailing daughter and thereafter, joined the duty and the respondents allowed him to join the duty.
The petitioner without securing any leave left the office and remained absent for ten days with effect form 21-10-1992 to 3-11-1992. Both the Tribunals below have given concurrent finding of fact against the petitioner on all the issues, therefore, Constitutional petition is not maintainable.
Learned counsel of the petitioner in rebuttal reiterated his earlier contention that the services of the petitioner was terminated by the respondents without issuing any notice to the petitioner and completed the inquiry within one day.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
5. It is admitted fact that both the Tribunals below after proper appreciation of evidence have concurrently decided against the petitioner. The learned counsel of the petitioner failed to point out any piece of evidence, which was misread or non-read by both the Tribunals below or violated any provision of law while non-suiting the petitioner by both the Tribunals below. The learned counsel of the petitioner also failed to point out that action of the respondents is violative of any provisions of law, therefore, Constitutional petition is not maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ali Mir's case (PLD 1984 SCM R 433). As mentioned above, both the Tribunals below have given concurrent findings of fact against the petitioner, therefore, writ petition is not maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- ' Khuda Bukhsh v. Muhammad Sharif and another (1974 SCM R 279)
' Muhammad Sharif v. Muhammad Afzal Sohail and others (PLD 1981 SC 246)
' Abdul Rehman Bajwa v. Sultan and 9 others (PLD 1981 SC 522)
It is also settled principle of law that this Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own findings in place of the findings of the Tribunal below as the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court and the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- ' M. Massadaq Naseem Sindhoo's case (PLD 1973 Lahore 600)
' Syed Azmat Ali v. Mst. Aimna Bibi (PLD 1964 SC 260)
' In view of what has been discussed above, this Constitutional petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.