' IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.--- While serving as Pump Operator, Maintenance Department, Feroz Sons Laboratories, Amangarh, Nowshera, appellant, Abdul Aziz, was charge-sheeted for misconduct within the meaning of Standing Order 15(3)(i) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 with direction to explain in writing within three days of the receipt of notice as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him ' The charge-sheet was issued by respondent No,1 i,e, Sikandar Ahmad Sadik, Director Administration on 22-2-2001. He was on a round along with the Production Manager when he observed that the overhead tank of residential colony was overflowing profusely and Pump Operator Abdul Aziz appellant was not present at the place of his duty i,e, Turbine Room. The appellant appeared later on at about 7-30 hours and put off the switch. The act was treated as neglect of duty on appellant's part causing loss to the company's property i,e, unnecessary consumption of electricity and wastage of water etc. The reply to the charge-sheet did not satisfy the respondent-Management, therefore, inquiry was directed to be initiated against the appellant.
The Inquiry officer found the appellant guilty of misconduct. Consequently, he was dismissed from service, vide order, dated 14-5-2001. The appellant challenged the action of the management before Labour Court, Peshawar by filing grievance petition under section 46 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002. The learned Labour Court dismissed the petition by order, dated 12-4-2004.
However, dismissal was converted into termination of service.
2. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the appellant has filed instant appeal, calling into question the validity and propriety of order, dated 12-4-2004 of learned Labour Court, Peshawar.
3. Mr. Abdul Qayum Sarwar, Advocate, representing the appellant vehemently contended that the finding of the learned Labour Court that the appellant was negligent in performance of his duty or neglect of work, was against the evidence on record and amounted to a complete misreading of evidence. The learned counsel pointed out that no inquiry report was supplied to the appellant despite his request, which has materially prejudiced the interest of the appellant. Concluding the arguments, learned counsel maintained that overflow of water took place, as there was no scale of measurement on the tank.And there was no cover on the top, as such, appellant could not be held responsible for the act alleged against him. In support of the contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on Habib Bank Limited v. Musaddiq Hussain and 2 others 1992 PLC 1109, Niaz Ali v. Punjab Urban Transport Authority, Lahore and 3 others PLD 1983 Lah. 661, Messrs Searle (Pakistan) Ltd. v.
Muhammad Arif and another NLR 1986 (sic) 559 and Khawaja Sathi Muhammad Moinuddin v.
United Bank Limited NLR 1986 TD 550.
4. Mr. Nisar Ahmed Khan, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent management, on the contrary, refuted the arguments of learned appellant's counsel and supported the impugned judgment/order whole-heartedly. To augment the contentions, he placed reliance on Qadeer Ahmed v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and another PLD 1990 SC 787 and Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. Channan Khan and others 1980 PLC 981.
5. A perusal of the record would reveal that the reply, having been received and thoroughly considered, was found unsatisfactory and in order to probe further into the allegations levelled against the appellant, Mr. Shamsul Arifeen, Production Manager was appointed as an Inquiry Officer. The appellant was directed to appear before him. The inquiry proceedings were initiated.
The appellant appointed Mr. Masood Shah, as his representative to help him in the inquiry proceedings. The appellant and his representative participated in the inquiry proceedings, cross- examined witnesses, produced by the administration and examined five witnesses in defence. The mere assertion of the appellant that he was not given fair opportunity to clarify his position and condemned unheard, without a positive attempt on his part to substantiate the same, is of no consequence. I am satisfied that the matter was thoroughly probed and the appellant was rightly found guilty of negligence in performing of his duty. The law does not provide supply of copy of inquiry report/ proceedings to the workers. The appellant has been removed from service after fulfilling all the codal formalities and no prejudice seems to A have been caused to the appellant. It may be noticed here that in the year 1998, the appellant had committed a similar misconduct for which he was given a warning, but he could not mend his ways. The charge has been served upon the appellant within the stipulated period. Proper inquiry was held, wherein the appellant and his representative duly participated. The impugned order has been passed by a duly Authorized Officer. The same does not call for interference by this Court in its appellate jurisdiction. The case- law cited on behalf of the appellant is distinguishable and does not promote his cause in any manner
6. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal having been found bereft of merit is hereby dismissed. No order to costs.