DECISION This is an appeal against the order, dated 25th November, 1984, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. VI, Hyderabad.
The appellant was employed as a Fitter in the respondent Mills. On 26-11-1980 he was directed by the Incharge Engineer to cut iron flats but he not only refused to carry out the said orders but also misbehaved with his superior Engineer, abused and assaulted him causing injuries as well. The matter was then reported to the General Manager and so also the appellant was charge-sheeted on the same date. After enquiry he was dismissed from service, on 27-4-1981. The grievance petition was filed which was dismissed. An appeal was preferred before the Tribunal. The matter was remanded, setting aside the dismissal order and the order of the Labour Court. The Tribunal passed the following order on 29-11-1982:--- "The upshot of the above discussion is that I would set aside the impugned order of the learned Labour Court as well as the orders of dismissal of Appellant. However, it will be open to Respondent Mills to hold fresh enquiry against the Appellant based on the charge-sheet, dated 26-11-1980."
Subsequently enquiry was held. He was again dismissed.
2. In support of his case the appellant examined himself while the respondent examined the present General Manager, Mansoor Alam and also Deputy Chief Chemist, Abdul Waheed Qureshi.
The two counsel were heard by me today. The point raised in this appeal is that the work of a Fitter and the functions of blacksmith are two distinguished and separate functions. The General Manager who appeared in Labour Court stated that it is quite evident that Fitter is also supposed to cut the--iron flats if needed or directed. The learned counsel Mr. Raees M. Mushtaq also urged that appellant refused to cut iron flats because he refused to obey the lawful order. This is important point and this does involve disobedience.
3. It is also contended that the enquiry proceedings are vitiated on the ground that Enquiry Officer did not act independently and he was not only influenced but was also guided by the previous enquiry. Accordingly, in view of Mr. Rizvi, that, the dismissal order passed on such enquiry proceedings cannot be maintained. The Labour Court wenLA through the entire domestic proceedings and found that there is nothing A on the record to suggest that the Enquiry Officer was influenced or guided by the previous enquiry proceedings. The appellant himself has cross- examined each witness and also tendered his defence witness as well. The proceeding started from 22-1-1983 and continued upto 15-3-1983 and during all this long period the appellant never objected to the proceedings. As per enquiry report the appellant was also permitted to have assistance of a co-worker.
4. The appellant himself has admitted the incident. He admitted that he refused to obey the order of the Engineer on the plea that the work of cutting flats was not his work, he, therefore, disobeyed the order. It is itself an act of misbehavior. Not only this but there is B evidence that he assaulted the Engineer and caused injuries. This is very serious. The appellant is alleged to have abused the Engineer and also assaulted him. The appeal, therefore, has no substance and it is hereby dismissed.