' ABDUL AZIZ KUNDI, J. - Izzat Khan Ex-Electric Muawani Power Van aggrieved of the judgment and order dated 16-12-2009 passed by Presiding Officer Labour Court Peshawar, dismissing his grievance petition under section 46 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, has questioned the same through the instant appeal under section 54(3) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2008, praying for reversal of the said judgment and order and acceptance of his grievance petition.
2. Facts precisely stated are that appellant-petitioner was appointed as Electric Muawan/Power Van (BPS-1) by order, dated 2-3-2006 issued by Divisional Personnel Officer Pakistan Railways Peshawar (Exh.PW1/1) subject to the condition that his educational certificates/ conduct will be verified and in case any irregularity is found his service will be terminated without any notice.
During verification of his educational certificates it revealed that both, appellant and his brother Ihsanullah, had produced bogus educational certificates and accordingly the appellant was discharged from service with immediate effect by order dated 18-8-2006 (copy Exh.R.W.1/16) issued by Divisional Personnel Officer for Divisional Superintendent Pakistan Railways, Peshawar. This order was conveyed to the petitioner by Electrical Foreman (PV) Pakistan Railways Peshawar Cantt on 18- 8-2006, copy Exh. P.W. 1/2 .
' Since through the impugned order dated 18-8-2006 (Exh.R.W. 1/16) both Izzat Khan and his brother Ihsannllah had been discharged from service, therefore, on my query learned counsel for the appellant stated that the said Ihsanullah realizing his mistake had not taken his grievance to the court.
In the matter a facts finding inquiry was conducted which held that the educational certificates of the appellant were fake and bogus and accordingly he being in the initial period of his appointment was discharged from service.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that provision of Standing Order No,15(4) of the Schedule under section 2(g) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Order)
Ordinance, 1968 were not complied with while passing the impugned order dated 18-8-2006.
4. As against that learned counsel for the respondents (Railways) pressed into service the provision of Standing Order No,12 ibid and stated that appellant was not required to have been proceeded under Standing Order 15(4) and that the action initiated against him was perfectly in accordance with law and that the Labour Court had also for valid reasons non-suited the appellant-petitioner.
5. Appellant-petitioner was charged for an offence which was graver in nature and of moral turpitude. In the, facts finding inquiry, in which he duly participated, his certificates were found bogus and thus his ease was not required to be dealt with under Standing Order 15(4) (ibid) being at the earlier stage of his appointment and which appointment had been made subject to verification of his certificates and conduct. In fact his appointment, based on fraud and bogus documents, was void ab initio.
6. Even otherwise, such a man deserves no leniency and thus has rightly been dealt with both by the departmental authorities and Labour Court. His appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.