1. This is an appeal under section 36-D of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, against an order, dated 13th December 1974, passed by the Junior Labour Court, Lyallpur, whereby the petition of the appellant was dismissed.
2. The appellant, Ghulam Hussain was an employee in Zeenat Textile Mills, Sargodha Road, Lyallpur.
3. He was removed from service on 6th October 1974, on the charge of riotous or disorderly behavior during working hours at the establishment. The allegation against him was that on 8th September 1974, he tried to enter into the office of the Secretary while holding his shoe in his hand and leading other workers exhorting them to beat the Secretary with shoes. The case of the employer was that the appellant was transferred from one section into another section, therefore, he felt offended. He thought that the Secretary was responsible for the transfer, therefore, he led other workers to the office of the Secretary with the intention to beat him. After serving a charge-sheet on the appellant and considering his reply an inquiry officer was appointed. He gave his report against the appellant. He found that the appellant was guilty of riotous and disorderly behavior during working hours. A show-cause notice was served on the appellant, a copy of the inquiry report was also supplied to him. His answer was found unsatisfactory and he was removed from service.
4. In his application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 the appellant pleaded that the charge against him was incorrect and he was victimized due to his Union activities. The Trial Court found that the employer had rightly dismissed the appellant from service.
5. Hence the employee has come up in appeal. The first question in this case is whether the inquiry held by the employer violates against the natural justice. In his original petition the proceedings of the inquiry were not challenged. It was only stated that the charge against him was incorrect. No Labour Court can sit on judgment on the findings of the Inquiry Officer. In appeal it was stated that the appellant was not allowed to nominate any worker for his assistance during the inquiry. It was admitted that there was a nominee but he was of the choice of the employer. There is nothing in the evidence produced before the Trial Court to prove this fact. The nominee was to be appointed by the employee himself. The proceeding does not show that the nominee was appointed by the employer.
6. The appellant has brought nothing on record to show that he was victi--mized due to his Union activities. The appeal has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed.