1. ' ARSHAD NOOR KHAN, J.--- The appellant has challenged the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No, VI, Hyderabad dated 19-9-2005, whereby the Application No,145 of 2004 under section 46(3) of I.R.O., 2002 filed by the appellant, for his reinstatement was dismissed.
2. ' The facts leading rise to the present appeal in brief are that the appellant was appointed as fitter with the respondent No,1 in 1981 and was thereafter promoted as Senior Fitter and then Mechanic.
3. The appellant was directed by the Chief Engineer to repair water line leading to K-type Quarters for supply of the water to the Colony to which appellant reported to the Chief Engineer that he had completed the work and water supply was restored to K-type Quarters, but on checking it was found that he had not done the work assigned to him and had made false report of doing the said work, he was, therefore, charge-sheeted on 10-5-2004 on the ground of misconduct to which he replied on 12-5-2004. The reply of the appellant was found unsatisfactory, as such, the enquiry was ordered to be conducted against him vide letter dated 13-5-2004 and Captain (Retd.) Sohail Iqbal Manager (Admn.) was appointed to conduct enquiry and the appellant was directed to appear before him on 15-5-2004 at 9-30 a.m. He appeared before the Enquiry Officer on the requisite date where according to him, Chief Engineer Mr, Afzal, Engineer Niaz Muhammad and Khalasi Ghulam Murtaza Foreman were present and allegedly his signature was obtained on blank paper, which subsequently were converted into enquiry report and he was illegally dismissed from service. He, therefore, served grievance notice on respondent No,1 and thereafter filed application before the Labour Court for his reinstatement.
4. ' The respondent No,1 was served, who appeared before the lower Court and stated that the appellant was directed to repair the water supply line, which he did not repair and vaguely reported to have completed the work assigned to him by the Chief Engineer and on checking the same it was found to have not been done, therefore, the appellant committed misconduct and was charge-sheeted and in enquiry full and fair opportunity was afforded to him. He participated in the enquiry proceedings and Enquiry Officer made report against him, therefore, his service was terminated.
5. ' After pleadings of the parties, the appellant filed affidavit in evidence and he was cross-examined by the respondent. The respondent also filed affidavit-in-evidence of Misbah-uz-Zaman, Assistant Manager, Administration, who also produced enquiry proceedings and was also cross-examined by the representative of the appellant.
6. ' The learned trial Court after hearing of the learned counsel for the parties and evaluation of the evidence available on record was pleased to dismiss the grievance application of the appellant, hence present appeal.
7. ' I have heard Mr. Ghulam Sarwar Chandio, learned counsel for the appellant.
8. ' He mainly contended that the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer was defective and against principles of natural justice and that the signature of appellant was obtained on blank paper, which was subsequently, converted into enquiry proceedings and in fact the enquiry was never conducted by the respondent and that there is no material available on record to show that the appellant has committed any misconduct by non-compliance of the orders of the Chief Engineer, as such, the trial Court was not competent to dismiss the grievance application of the appellant.
9. ' I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant and have gone through the entire material available before me.
10. ' It is not disputed by the appellant that he was directed by the Chief Engineer of the respondent No,1 to repair the water line for supply to K-type Quarters of the Colony, which according to him, he conveyed to Chief Engineer to have repaired, but as per assertion of the respondent the same was not repaired and the appellant conveyed the wrong report to Chief Engineer, which tantamount to misconduct on his part. The appellant was charge-sheeted on 10-5-2004 and he replied the said charge-sheet which was not found satisfactory and enquiry was ordered and Captain (Retd.)
11. Sohail Iqbal was appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry against the appellant. The appellant appeared before the Enquiry Officer where the statements of the Chief Engineer, Engineer Niaz Muhammad and Khalasi Ghulam Murtaza Foreman were recorded in presence of the appellant. The appellant cross-examined all the witnesses produced before the Enquiry Officer at sufficient length and after recording of the statements of the witnesses the signature of the appellant was obtained on each and every page of the enquiry proceedings and the statement of the appellant was also recorded by the Enquiry Officer and his signature was again obtained on his statement also. The Enquiry Officer on completion of the enquiry observed that the appellant was guilty of committing misconduct on the ground that he vaguely reported to the Chief Engineer for repair of the water line leading to K-type Quarters Colony. The appellant was afforded full and fair chance to participate in the proceedings. In case, if the signature of the appellant was obtained on blank paper he had to cross-examine the respondent before the lower Court on this aspect of the matter, but no material has been fished out from the evidence of respondent. The enquiry did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and no independent evidence has been brought on record to inflict any dent in the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer against the appellant. The learned trial Court has examined the whole evidence regarding the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer and have come to the conclusion that the full and fair opportunity was allowed to the appellant by the respondent to participate in the enquiry proceedings and the termination of the appellant on the basis of recommendation of the Enquiry Officer was not result of bias or mala fide against the appellant. The appellant has also not led any evidence to show that the Enquiry Officer had any personal grudge, bias and enmity against him to hold him guilty of committing misconduct. The finding of the learned lower Court does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
12. ' For all aforesaid reasons and circumstances I do not find it a fit case to interfere in the impugned order passed by learned lower Court. The appeal has, therefore, no merit and the same is hereby dismissed in limine.