DECISION This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 7-1-1984, passed by the Sind Labour Court NO.VII, Sukkur, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as Salesman in the respondent establishment, vide order, dated 7-7-1982 and on 7-6-1983 he was issued transfer order No.997 which was cancelled on the same day and again on the very day, vide letter No.1010, the appellant was suspended for four days which was extended for further four days, vide order No.1033, dated 12-6-1983. The appellant was alleged that he had misappropriated an amount of Rs.1,11,970 as was detected in the preliminary departmental enquiry conducted on 3-3-1983. The appellant submitted his reply to it on 14-4-1983 and in the meantime a F.I. R. Was also lodged against the appellant on 24-3-1983 with the F.I.A. Police Sukkur but the said Police had not yet challaned the case. On 7-6- 1983, the appellant was issued a charge-sheet, but, as his reply, dated 11-6-1983, was not found satisfactory, therefore, vide letter, dated 12-6-1983 he was intimated that a domestic enquiry will be held on 15-6-1983. It was further the case of the appellant that in the domestic enquiry, only the statement of the appellant was recorded and without giving him an opportunity to defend himself letter, dated 26-6-1983 terminating his services was issued by the respondent establishment.
Thereafter, on 28-8-1983, the appellant sent a grievance notice to the respondent establishment through registered post, A/D and then submitted grievance petition before the Labour Court on 24-9-1983.
3. The respondent establishment resisted the petition by denying all the allegations against them.
4. Both the parties filed their affidavits-in-evidence and they were duly cross-examined. The learned Labour Court has then dismissed the petition of the appellant, hence, this appeal.
5. I have heard Mr. Manzar Alam, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Sadiq Ansari, the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent establishment and have also perused the record and proceedings of the case. On a careful examination of the admitted factual and legal position of the case as well as evidence, brought on the record of the Labour Court , I am of the view that the appellant has no case and the learned Labour Court has rightly rejected his petition. There is an admission on behalf of the appellant that on 3-3-1983 in the preliminary enquiry a misappropriation was detected and within the prescribed period of one month, i.e. On 24-3-1983, he was called for explanation vide, letter of the same date i.e. 24-3- 1983. Again, he had himself admitted that his statement was recorded in the domestic enquiry and he was afforded opportunity to defend himself and a copy of the enquiry report, alongwith second show-cause notice was also given to him. Admittedly, the appellant did not challenge the legality and propriety of the domestic enquiry in which he was found guilty of the misconduct and subsequently his services were terminated by the respondent establishment, vide order, dated 26- 6-1983. In view of this admitted position, the appellant could not maintain his petition, which was liable to be dismissed.
6. For the above reasons, I see no reasons to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain it. This appeal is accordingly lo dismissed.
M.Y.H./944/LB.S