DECISION This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the impugned order, dated 23-2-1985, passed by the Sind Labour Court No.1, Karachi who had dismissed the grievance petition filed by him under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellant was employed in the respondent establishment as a sweeper on 29-9-1980 and that as per conditions of his employment, he was required to work as sweeper and not as Coolie or Khalasi. That on 4-6-1984 the appellant was asked to work as coolie and to remove the iron scrap in large quantity from the factory premises, but, he refused to do so as this was an unlawful order. That on the sarpq date, he wa served with the charge-sheet and as, his reply to it was found unsatisfactory, therefore, a domestic enquiry was conducted and consequently as a result of that enquiry, he was dismissed from service on 16-6-1984. That thereafter, the appellant submitted a grievance petition before the Labour Court.
3. The respondent establishment had challenged the maintainability of the grievance petition of the appellant on the ground that as he had no right guaranteed or secured under any law, award or a settlement; therefore, he had no locus standi to file the petition. That on merits, it was the case of the respondent establishment, having been employed as a sweeper, he used to perform the work of cleaning and sweeping the entire factory premises as per his job requirements and that no sweeper was required to work as Coolie or Khalasi. That on 4-6-1984 at 11-15 a.m. The appellant was ordered to clean/clear of the waste consisting of iron strips from the area out of the factory gate, as usual, but he refused to do so. That thereafter, a charge-sheet was issued to him and a proper domestic enquiry was conducted against him in which he was afforded full opportunity of defence and that as he was found guilty of the misconduct, therefore, he was rightly dismissed from service.
4. The appellant filed his sole affidavit-in-evidence and he was cross-examined before the Labour Court. The respondent establishment filed the affidavits of three witnesses who were also cross- examined by the appellant. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant, hence this appeal.
5. I have heard the appellant in person. I have also heard Mr. Muhammad Humayoon, the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent establishment and have carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. It is an admitted fact that the appellant was appointed as a sweeper in the respondent establishment and as per his job requirement he was duty bound to clean and sweep not only the latrines and urinals, but also the entire factory premises. It is also an admitted position that the appellant used to clean and sweep the area of the establishment and to remove the small iron strips and except the sole word of the appellant, there is no other evidence produced by the appellant that he was ordered to lift or remove the heavy iron strips or to perform the duties of a Coolie or Khalasi. There is further an admission on behalf of the appellant that on 4-6-1984 he was asked to sweep something near the store of the factory and that he removed the dirt but refused to remove the three iron strips contending that it was not his job and that he had participated in the domestic enquiry and that he had not produced defence evidence.
6. It is contended by Mr. Muhammad Humayoon the learned Advocate for the respondent establishment that in view of the terms of the employment of the appellant he was duty bound to perform his usual duties and that through corroborative evidence of the three witnesses of the respondent establishment, it was proved that the appellant had refused to obey the lawful orders of his employer, hence had committed a misconduct liable to be dismissed from service under the provisions of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. It is further contended by him that the appellant was afforded full opportunity to defend himself A in accordance with the requirements of law and the principles of natural justice, so he was rightly dismissed from service, hence he has no right to maintain his grievance petition. I see force in the arguments of Mr. Muhammad Humayoon, therefore, hold that the learned Labour Court has rightly dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant holding him guilty of the misconduct.
7. The upshot of the above discussion is that I see no need to inerfere with the impugned order, therefore, maintain it. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.