1. DECISION ' ALI MUHAMMAD BALOCH, MEMBER.--- The appellant assailed order dated 13.4.2012 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court No,III, Karachi in the matter of grievance application No,44/2009 under Section 41, IRA, 2008, whereby the Labour Court after recording evidence and hearing the parties dismissed the said application filed by the appellant.
2. ' I have heard both the parties who have also filed their written arguments supported with citations, which I have considered and came to the conclusion as follows.
3. ' The main contention of learned Advocate of the Appellant is that the action taken against the appellant is against the provisions of law and . The inquiry proceedings were not properly conducted by the respondent company and therefore, the order of his dismissal from service dated 20.4.2009 is not sustainable under the law.
4. ' As against the a fore-mentioned assertions of appellant counsel, Mr. Mahboob Rizvi the learned Representative for respondent has submitted that the respondents have not violated any provision of law and the appellant was issued with a charge sheet dated 3.4.2009 and inquiry notice dated 11.4.2009 and thereafter, an inquiry was conducted by Mr. Mahmood Sultan, Labour Officer HR of the respondent company who after holding inquiry found the appellant guilty of committing an act of misconduct as mentioned against him in the said charge sheet vide his inquiry report and the appellant was, dismissed from service vide order dated 20.4.2009 as a result of proved act of misconduct.
5. ' In this connection, my attention was drawn to the observations.Of learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No,III at pages 5 and 6 of his order dated 13.4.2012 which fully support the contention of respondent and the same is as follows.
6. "This charge sheet has admittedly received by the applicant on 07.04.2009 but this charge sheet despite of serious allegations has not replied by applicant. No cogent reasons in this regard has been furnished by the applicant therefore, it appears that charge sheet/show cause notice was unattributed from applicant side. Not only this the inquiry notice i,e,, annex R/3 dated 11.4.2009 with the W/S and evidence showing that said inquiry notice was sent to the applicant at his admitted address through registered post A/D. Postal receipt is on record showing that one Mr. Mehmood Sultan was appointed as Inquiry Officer to hold inquiry with regard to allegations of misconduct against applicant and in the said notice the applicant was. Directed to appear before inquiry officer on 16-04-2009 at 11.30 a.m. In the factory premises but record shows that applicant did not participate in the inquiry proceedings despite of service of inquiry notice. As such inquiry proceedings was conducted by Mehmood Sultan inquiry Officer in absence of the applicant and as per exurban R/6, the statements of complainant namely Laiq Ahmed and his witness namely Jawed Akhtar were recorded. Complainant Laiq Ahmed stated in his statement that he was working as Senior Manager of folding department and according to him on 02.04.2009, Zainul Abdin worker was not found on duty in the department for which he was searched and after sufficient time, Zainul Abdin came in the department and he inquired from him as to why he was away from duty place on hearing this the applicant misbehaved with him and further stated do whatever you like. In his statement, he further disclosed that in the past the applicant had also misbehaved with his superior and as such was warned but he failed to improve his conduct."
7. From the perusal of a fore-mentioned observations of the Labour Court, my humble opinion in such matters would be that misbehaved by worker with their superiors is a very serious act of misconduct and in the above case, the appellant was already let off with a warning but failed to improve his conduct and again misbehaved with his superior which cannot be tolerated. The appellant failed to participate in the enquiry and further failed to explain the reason of his such misbehavior with his superiors while on duty within factory premises.
8. ' The learned Advocate for the appellant has cited the following rulings which in my opinion are not applicable in the present case.
(i) 2004 TD Labour 289, (ii) 2002 PLC 42, (iii) 2002 PLC 120, (iv) 2003 PLC 287.
9. ' As against the above, the learned representative for the respondent has relied on the following rulings.
(i) 1975 SCM R 46, (ii) 1.998 PLC 30, (iii) 2007 PLC 360 in case between Akhtar Munir v. General Tyre and Rubber Company of Pakistan Limited whereby the High Court of Sindh at page 361 has observed and the case law is as follows:- "S.O.15(4)---Domestic enquiry---not open for .Labour Court to re-examine and re-appreciate evidence recorded in domestic inquiry and come to the conclusibn contrary to one 'reached by Inquiry Officer."
10. I am fortified by the rulings submitted by Mr. Rizvi for the respondent company and I see no substance in the appeal filed, by the appellant worker which is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost.