' The appellant, who was employed as a Jobber in the respondent mills, was dismissed from service with effect from 23rd May, 1979, on the charges of not keeping the machines under his charge clean and misbehaving with and assaulting his Supervisor, Ghulam Nabi, when the latter pointed out to him dereliction of his duties. It may be pointed out that before the orders of his dismissal were issued by the respondent mills, permission was obtained from the learned Labour Court for such action under section 47, I.R.O., as an industrial dispute between the Management and the workers was pending adjudication at that time. The appellant challenged the orders of his dismissal before the learned VIth Labour Court at Hyderabad, which has dismissed his grievance petition on the ground that the misconduct of the appellant had been fully esablished in a domestic enquiry which was fairly held and full opportunity had been afforded to the appellant to defend himself. The learned Labour Court has also pointed out in its decision that permission under the provisions of section 47, I. R.
0. To dismiss the appellant, was given after careful consideration of the evidence adduced in support of the allegations against the appellant. Aggrieved by the decision of the learned Labour Court, the appellant has come up in appeal to this Tribunal.
2. Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi, the learned Representative for the appellant, has assailed the impugned decision of the learned Labour Court on 2 grounds. His first ground of attack was that the enquiry officer found the appellant guilty only for failing to have the machines under his charge cleaned and that such failure, assuming that the finding of the enquiry officer is correct, does not constitute misconduct for the purposes of Standing Order 15. The contention of the learned Representative is misconceived. The enquiry officer in his report, after giving a summary of the evidence recorded in the enquiry, has held that not only the appellant had failed to have the machines under his charge cleaned, but further when the fact was brought to his notice by his Supervisor, Ghulam Nabi, he misbehaved with him and disobyed his orders. From the evidence of Ghulam Nabi in the domestic enquiry it appears that when he brought to the notice of the appellant the latter's failure to have the machines under his charge cleaned, the latter not only misbehaved with him but also assaulted him by catching hold of him by his collar. The assault was witnessed by foreman Khadim Hussain who stated that he had seen the appellant catching hold of the collar of Supervisor Ghulam Nabi. As pointed out by the learned Labour Court, both these witnesses were subjected to a lengthy cross-examination but. They remained firm in their assertion against the appellant. No valid reasons have been shown why the testimony of these 2 witnesses, who admittedly have no animosity against the appellant, should be disbelieved.
3. It was next submitted by Mr. Wasiullah Quresh, that although the enquiry officer has held the appellant guilty of misbehaving with Supervisor Ghulam Nabi, he has neither stated in his report the nature of the misbehaviour nor given any reason in support of his finding. Moreover, the learned Representative contended, that mere misbehaviour, even with a Supervisor, does not constitute riotous or disorderly behaviour. As already pointed out the enquiry officer has given a summary of the evidence given in the domestic enquiry by Supervisor Ghulam Nabi and Foreman Khadim Hussain. From the evidence of these 2 witnesses, it is clear that the appellant, on it being pointed out to him by Supervisor Ghulam Nabi that the machines in his charge had not been cleaned, assaulted the Supervisor. The finding of the enquiry officer must, therefore, be read in conjunction with the summary of the evidence given by the enquiry officer in his report which indicates a serious act of indiscipline and misbehaviour on the part of the appellant. Assault on a Supervisor by a worker, when the latter's dereliction of duties is pointed out to him, not only constitutes riotous and disorderly behaviour during working hours but further constitutes an act grossly subversive of discipline. It is thus clear that such act, constitutes misconduct for the purposes of Standing Order 15 (3) (h).
4. I have gone through the record of the domestic enquiry and would agree with the view taken by the learned Labour Court that the enquiry was fairly and properly held, that full opportunity was given to the appellant to defend himself and that the misconduct of the appellant was fully established.
5. For the reasons discussed by me above, I find no merit in this appeal and would accordingly dismiss the same in limine.