DECISION ' This is an appeal against the impugned order passed by the Labour Court No, VI at Hyderabad on 30th January, 1984.
' The facts are that one Wali Muhammad was working as Gangman at Chhor in the Pakistan Railways. He was injured and was referred to Medical Officer of the appellant. On recovery, he reported for duty and he was made to work as waterman from 1st October, 1982 to 23rd October, 1982. On 24th October, 1982, he was not allowed to perform his duties but was directed to attend the office of appellant No, 2 for duty. The appellant No, 2 also refused to allow him to work. The respondent submitted an application on 2nd November, 1982 but no response was given to him. A grievance notice was given on 26th December, 1982 to the appellants but tbey failed to reply. The appellants in the reply statement refuted the allegations and took a stand that the respondent himself deserted his duties.
3. Both the parties adduced evidence in the Labour Court and I have heard today the learned counsel of the appellants. Mr. S. Jehangir Hussain and Mr. Muhammad Shafi, Advocate for the respondent.
4. In the evidence, the appellants took a plea that the respondent was offered the job of Rest House Chowkidar but the respondent refused. While on the other hand the respondent asserted that no such orders were given and there is no order in writing in this respect. For the desertion of the duties no charge-sheet was given to him. The grievance notice was himself communicated by the respondent to the appellants.
5. In the arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants urged that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain grievance application under section 25-A,
1. R.
0., 1969, as the appellants were not the employers of the respondent and also the Chowkidar was not a workman. The position is that the respondent was Gangman No, 27 working at chhor, District Tharparkar. The plea that the Chowkidar is not a workman though is wrong in view of the authorities, yet, the plea is taken as Chowkidar by the appellant subsequently in the course of evidence. They would not deny that the respondent was a Gangman. A Gangman could be employed by the appellants Nos, 3 to 4. The learned counsel has no force in his arguments. The plea that the respondent had deserted the job was found to be false by the learned Labour Court.
6. I find that there is no substance in the appeal, therefore, it is hereby dismissed. The order of the learned Labour Court is maintained.