1. ' This appeal arises from the decision, dated 21st July, 1980 passed by the learned Presiding Officer Labour Court No, 8, Bahawalpur whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re- instatement in service was dismissed.
2. ' The allegation against the appellant was that he was not co-operating with Messrs Awan Brothers by not supplying to their goods for being carried on the trucks placed at his disposal which affected the business of the respondent amounting to cause loss to the business besides amounting to subversive activities and neglect of work. Reply P. 3 to the charge-sheet was found unsatisfactory and inquiry was held which after the observation of legal formalities culminated in the dismissal of the appellant. No defect has been found out in the inquiry.
3. ' Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the charge-sheet P. 1 is vague. I do not find much force in this argument. There appears no ambiguity nor any one has been found out by the learned counsel for which it may be said that the charge-sheet is vague. The allegation is clear that when trucks were placed at the disposal of the appellant he did not properly supply the goods for loading, and in this manner he was non-co-operative. It was decided that non-supply of goods for being loaded adversely affected the business of the respondent. If the trucks made available by Awan Brothers were not loaded it caused loss to the said transport who would show reluctance to supply the vehicles resulting in loss to the business of the respondent. Likewise by non-supply of goods properly for being loaded on the trucks directly caused loss to the business of the respondent because by late loading goods could reach the agents of the respondent late.
4. ' Learned counsel has also argued that it was not pointed out that the appellant was non-co- operative inasmuch as he had been making reports to the respondent that Awan Brothers had no trucks of his own and thus they did not supply the same properly. It has also been argued that the reports were made some months before the appellant was charge-sheeted so they cannot be said to be false or to create false defence. The reports are P. 15 to P.
16. No doubt such reports were sent by the appellant to the company but the carriage contractor had also been making reports against the appellant. The actual cause for the non-supply of trucks is that the appellant used to give very short notice to the Contractor for lifting goods. One day before the goods were to be transferred the appellant used to give intimation. Sometimes in evening he ordered for the supply of trucks and goods were to be transferred in the morning. He admitted these things in his statement recorded in the inquiry. It was in reality difficult for the contractor to supply trucks at such a short notice. As such the relations of the appellant were strained with the Contractor, therefore, he was causing troubles. The cause of trouble was that the Contractor refused to comply with the demand of the appellant for illegal gratification. Although there is no charge of corruption against the appellant in the charge-sheet but in order to show that the appellant had set up non-co-operating behavior towards the Contractor, it was shown that he used to demand trucks and when it was refused he started deducting Rs, 300 per month from the bills of the Contractor. The reports referred to above made by the appellant against the contractor to his company, therefore, cannot defend the appellant against the proved charges. There is evidence on the inquiry record to prove the charges. The Godown Cooli is the natural witness of the happening as he used, to be present at the Godown proved the charge. Manager and the contractor also deposed against the appellant. They were the persons concerned about. The appellant did rely upon the sales Lipton in his statement but did not produce any evidence in defence to prove the allegation and to rebut the prosecution evidence produced against him in the inquiry.
5. Learned counsel has also argued that quantum of punishment and that some other punishment short of dismissal could have not the ends of justice. It is the discretion of the employer to choose what punishment to A be awarded. It was argued that the Labour Courts are competent to substantiate kind of punishment but I cannot agree with this. In appeal punishment may be modified but Labour Courts are not appellate authorities over the endings of the Inquiry Officer or the employer. He has cited 1980 PLC 62 which is a decision of labour as appellate authority' over the forum of junior Labour Courts. I cannot agree with the opinion in the authority. The learned lower Court rightly dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant. There is no force in the appeal which is dismissed.