DECISION ' This appeal is directed against a decision of the learned Second Labour Court, given on 11-3-1980, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant challenging his dismissal from service.
2. The appellant, who was employed as motor vehicle Driver by the respondent establishment, was dismissed from service with effect from 14-4-1977 on the twin charges of unauthorisedly driving a vehicle not allotted to him and attempting to pass through the K. P. T. Gate in contravention of specific orders from the Manager, Administration, prohibiting the use of the said gate. In the domestic enquiry, upon which the dismissal orders were based, the plea of the appellant was that he had used another vehicle and also attempted to pass through the K. P. T. Gate under the directions of Muhammad Yasin, Store Keeper, who was then the most senior officer available on the spot and he genuinely believed that Muhammad Yaseen was competent to issue such instructions.
This plea of the appellant cannot be accepted in view of the fact that all the Drivers, including the appellant were under the charge of the Transport Department and the Store Keeper had no control over or concern with them and that in any case Muhammad Yaseen was not competent to permit a vehicle to pass through a prohibited gate in contravention of the orders of the Manager Administration.
3. The appellant challenged his dismissal from service by way of a grievance petition before the learned Labour Court, which, however, dismissed the same and rejected the plea of the appellant that either Muhammad Yaseen was competent to issue orders to the appellant to use a vehicle not allotted to him or pass through the prohibited gate or that the appellant's action should be excused assuming that Muhammad Yaseen did give him the instructions alleged by the appellant.
4. I have heard Mr. S. P. Lodhi, the learned Representative for the appellant. His sole contention was that the appellant acted under the orders of Muhammad Yaseen, Store Keeper, who was senior most officer at the spot. Even if the use by the appellant of a vehicle not allotted to him can somehow be excused, the action of the appellant in attempting to pass through the K. P. T. Gate in violation of the specific orders of the Manager Administration amounts to gross disobedience of the lawful orders of his superior. In his instructions, the Manager Administration, had made it clear that serious action would be taken against any employee attempting to use the K. P. T. Gate, the gate through which the appellant was, attempting to drive his vehicle. It may be pointed out that the vehicle in question was stopped at the gate by the security staff and two smuggled than of cloth were recovered from it. This shows that the vehicle was used for an unlawful purpose. The misconduct of the appellant, thus, stands fully established.
5. For the foregoing reasons, I find no ground to interfere with the decision of the learned Labour Court. I would, accordingly, dismiss this appeal in limine.