' The petitioner was employed as Driver in the office of respondent No, 1 in the year 1982 when he was ultimately dismissed vide order dated 14-1-1983. He filed an appeal before respondent No, 2, who dismissed the same vide order dated 12-3-1983. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, which was dismissed as not maintainable vide order dated 7- 4-1984. It was held that since the petitioner is covered by the definition of `worker' as given in the Workmen's Compensation Act, therefore, he is not a civil servant and cannot maintain an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal. In this behalf, the reliance was placed on the case of Baqa Muhammad v. Punjab Province 1976 PLC (C.S.) 1(2). The petitioner thereafter filed a grievance petition in the Punjab Labour Court No, 2, Lahore. The same was dismissed as incompetent as the office of the Deputy Commissioner was neither industrial nor commercial establishment. The order of the Labour Court is dated 18-6-1984. Thereafter the petitioner filed an appeal before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which upheld the finding of the Labour Court and dismissed the appeal vide order dated 17-12-1984. The petitioner thereafter has filed the present writ petition on 22-1- 1985. The same was admitted to regular hearing and notices were issued to the respondents. The respondents have entered appearance and contested the petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition argued that the Labour Court and Appellate Tribunal wrongly and illegally refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested in them. The next submission is that it cannot be deemed that the petitioner has no remedy under the law for redress of his grievance. On facts it is submitted that the petitioner was charge-sheeted for corruption. The allegations were not proved but still petitioner was dismissed on the basis of misconduct. It is added that for this reason punishment is for extraneous reasons.
3. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate-General on behalf of the respondents argued that the decision of Tribunal as well as Labour Court and Appellate Tribunal are correct and in accordance with the law. The only remedy available to the petitioner was either recourse to the civil suit or writ petition, therefore, there is no merit in the argument that the petitioner had no remedy under law.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record as well as relevant provisions of law. The Punjab Service Tribunal rightly dismissed the appeal of the petitioner as incompetent as he was excluded from the definition of civil servant while the Labour Court and Appellate Tribunal also dismissed his grievance petition and appeal rightly because the office of the Deputy Commissioner is neither `industrial establshment' nor a 'factory', therefore, the petitioner could not maintain a grievance petition. There is nothing wrong with their findings. It seems that the petitioner also accepted these findings as correct. It is for this reason that he has not impleaded Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal as respondent in this writ petition. The prayer clause further confirms this impression because petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal dated 24-1-1983, therefore, this part of the matter stands concluded.
5. Now coming to the merits. The argument was that the petitioner was charged with allegations of receiving illegal gratification. The petitioner denied the allegations as false and mala fide. It is argued that the inquiry officer held that the petitioner had received the amounts from different persons to engage counsel to arrange for their bails in the offences and in the process he might have got a share out of these amounts. It is maintained that the petitioner has been dismissed for allegations other than for which he was charge-sheeted. The perusal of the file shows that the petitioner was charge-sheeted both for 'misconduct' and `corruption'. The inquiry officer clearly held that petitioner did receive amounts and thereafter proceeded to make a guess to the effect that he might have been receiving these amounts for engaging counsel for the arrested people under the Foodstuffs Control Act and might be getting some share out of the same. The authority after due consideration of the inquiry report proceeded to serve him with second show-cause notice and after hearing the petitioner dismissed him. The petitioner assailed this order of dismissal through appeal before respondent No, 2, who after due consideration of the matter dismissed the same. It is clear from the order of respondent No, 2 that the case now set up in the arguments was not the case of the petitioner. This way there is concurrent finding of fact as to the guilt. The petitioner has denied the allegations altogether. It was for him to explain the receipt of these amounts and not for the inquiry officer to make a guess and in any case the petitioner was charged for misconduct and if he was acting as a tout even then the same cannot be praised. It amounted to serious misconduct. The petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference in the Constitutional jurisdiction.
6. The result is that this petition is dismissed.