1. ' ARSHAD NOOR KHAN, J.--- By this appeal, the appellant has questioned the legality and validity of the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No,VI, Hyderabad dated 31-8- 2005, whereby the Grievance Application No,138 of 2004 under section 46(3) of I.R.O., 2002 filed by the appellant against the respondent for his reinstatement was dismissed.
2. The facts leading rise to the present appeal in brief are that the appellant was employed as Helper in the respondent's factory, who was doing his duty honestly, efficiently and delinquently and was also doing part time in the said mill, but no payment of over time was made to him for which he repeatedly requested to the respondent. The respondent observed the attitude, conduct and be haviour of the appellant unsatisfactory during the course of his employment, as such, they served a notice on him and enquiry was ordered to be conducted against him. One Shahid Qureshi was appointed as Enquiry Officer, who after holding the enquiry was of the opinion that the appellant was guilty of committing misconduct, therefore, he recommended for his removal from service.
3. Consequent upon the enquiry report, the service of the appellant was terminated, therefore, he served grievance notice on the respondent and subsequently filed petition for his reinstatement before the learned lower Court. The notice of the said petition was served on the respondent, who appeared and denied the averments contained in the petition for reinstatement of the appellant and further submitted that the appellant had committed misconduct during the course of his service, therefore, charge-sheet was served on him and his reply was found unsatisfactory, therefore, enquiry was conducted through Enquiry Officer, who after holding enquiry recommended for removal of the appellant, therefore, he was removed from the service.
4. ' After pleadings of the parties, the evidence was recorded by the learned lower Court and after recording of the evidence and hearing of the arguments, the petition for reinstatement of the appellant was dismissed, hence present appeal.
5. ' I have heard Mr. Ghulam Samar Chandio, learned counsel for the appellant.
6. ' He vehemently contended that the appellant did not commit any misconduct and the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer was not conducted properly and the enquiry suffers from legal defects, as such, the respondent could not terminate the service of the appellant on the vague report of the Enquiry Officer and the learned lower Court was not justified in refusing the reinstatement of the appellant, as such, the order passed by the learned lower Court may be reversed and he may, be reinstated in service.
7. ' I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant and have gone through the material available before me.
8. The fact which remained undisputed is that the appellant while employed in the factory of respondent was charge-sheeted by the respondent on the ground of misconduct committed by him and his reply to the said charge-sheet was found unsatisfactory, therefore, the enquiry was conducted through Shahid Qureshi. After appointment of the Enquiry Officer, he served notice on the appellant for his appearance before him to participate in the enquiry proceedings. The appellant appeared and participated in the enquiry proceedings and evidence of the witnesses namely Shabir and Perwaiz were recorded in his presence and he was afforded an opportunity of cross-examination to the witnesses. The statement of the appellant was also recorded by the Enquiry Officer, which fact also remains undisputed. The Enquiry Officer after evaluation of whole evidence available before him observed that the appellant was guilty of misconduct and recommended for termination of the service. The enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer shows that full and fair chance were afforded by the Enquiry Officer to the appellant to participate in the enquiry proceedings and he also participated in the enquiry proceedings and throughout proceedings he did not raise any objection on the appointment of Enquiry Officer nor allege any mala fide, bias and enmity against him. It is also not disputed that the appellant was not afforded reasonable opportunity to participate in the enquiry proceedings, which shows that the appellant was afforded full and fair opportunity to rebut the allegations contained in the charge-sheet, but the appellant failed to produce any evidence to inflict reasonable discrepancy in the statements of the witnesses recorded before the Enquiry Officer. The respondent during the course of proceedings before the learned lower Court examined the Enquiry Officer, who also filed his affidavit-in-evidence and deposed about the manner in which he conducted the enquiry and afforded full and fair chance to the appellant to participate in the enquiry proceedings and the same assertion of the Enquiry Officer has not been controverted by the appellant in his cross- examination. The Enquiry Officer has also produced all the enquiry papers, statements and his recommendation to the respondent against the appellant, in his enquiry report and the trial Court apprised the whole evidence brought on record by the respondent regarding allegation of misconduct committed by the appellant and proof of the said allegations during the course of enquiry before the Enquiry Officer and did not find any material illegality or irregularity in the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer nor the appellant brought any independent evidence adverse to the enquiry report. The learned trial Court did not find any material defect in the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer against the appellant and has therefore, rightly refused the reinstatement of the appellant. The order passed by the learned lower Court, therefore, does not suffer from illegality, infirmity or irregularity so as to interfere in it. The appeal has, therefore, no merit and the same was dismissed on 6-10-2008 for the reasons to be recorded later on and these are the reasons for the same.