DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order of learned Presiding Officer Sindh Labour Court No, IV, Karachi dated 2-10-1990, whereby the grievance petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.
2. I have heard Mr. Abdul Majeed learned Representative for the appellant and Mr. Rafat Usmani learned counsel for the respondent and have also gone through the reocrd and proceedings of the case.
3. Admittedly the appellant was a workman working in Sheraton Hotel. On 21-6-1987 by Annexure A/9 he was charge-sheeted for remaining habitually absent from duty which charge-sheet was replied to by the appellant. According to Mr. Muzaffar All Personnel Development Manager of the respondent no further proceedings were taken in pursuance of that charge-sheet.
4. On 11-7-1987 the appellant was again charge-sheeted for remaining absent for more than 10 days from 25-6-1987 which charge-sheet was not replied to by the appellant. A domestic enquiry was held in the charge in which the appellant participated but he was found guilty of the charge by the Enquiry Officer. Consequently the appellant was dismissed from service by an order dated 26-8-1987. After serving grievance notice upon the respondent appellant filed grievance application before the learned Labour Court.
5. The main contention of Mr. Abdul Majeed is that the appellant was suspended vide order dated 21-6-1987 Annexure A for 4 days. He contends that the appellant came to resume duties from 25th, but he was not allowed to resume duty. The receipt of charge-sheet Annexure R/2 dated 11-74987 is admitted by the appellant in his cross-examination. He also admits that he did not reply to the charge-sheet. Thus, he did not raise the plea immediately after the charge-sheet, that he was attending the Hotel but was not allowed to resume duty. I also find that one Laiq Time-Keeper was examined before the Enquiry Officer. No complaint in writing about the absence of the appellant from duty made by this Laiq has been produced either before the Enquiry Officer or before the Labour Court. However, this Laiq has stated before the Enquiry Officer that the appellant remained absent from duty from 25th June but no question was put to him in cross-examination challenging his statement. The appellant claims to have made some application to the Labour Department on 25th June, 1987. Though the copy of this application has not been produced, nor any officer of the Labour Department has been examined, but even if it is believed, that he made such complaint, from his own admission,' the complaint was not that he was not allowed to resume duty, but it was that he was not being given the transfer order.
6. In cross-examination of Muzaffar Ali attempt has been made to create doubt about his competency to pass order of dismissal as an employer but the appellant in his cross-examination has himself admitted that Muzaffar All has been notified as an employer and that he has got power of hire and fire.
7. The Enquiry Officer Mr. Moosa Khan has been examined. Nothing has come on the record in the cross-examination to suggest that he was partial or the enquiry conducted by him was not fair.
8. In view of the above facts and discussion I agree with the finding of the learned Labour Court that charge against the applicant stands proved. The appeal is dismissed.