DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order of the Labour Court dismissing the application made by the appellant under section 25-A, I. R.
0. For reinstatement.
2. The appellant was a Driver in the employment of the respondent. He was appointed on 8th February, 1972 at Karachi. On 31st May, 1975 Efforts by approaching the Management to retransfer him to Karachi but his request was not considered. On 24th July, 1975 he was charge-sheeted that he had refused to perform his duty since 21st July, 1975. He submitted reply to the charge-sheet with the plea that the vehicle which he was required to drive suffered from serious defects which were likely to cause accident. His explanation was not found satisfactory and therefore, an Inquiry Officer was appointed. Inquiry was held, on the conclusion of the inquiry the Inquiry Officer found the appellant guilty of the charge. Consequently, the appellant was dismissed from service.
3. The appellant after serving the grievance notice made an application to the Labour Court with the allegation that he was victimized by the Management as he had made an application to the Chief Minister of Sind and had appeared as a witness in an inquiry held by a co-worker.
4. The evidence was tendered by both the parties. The Labour Court on the assessment of the evidence found that the appellant was dismissed after due inquiry and the allegation of victimization was not established. Consequently, he dismissed the application. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal had been filed.
5. It was pleaded before me that the appellant was transferred to Hyderabad in order to victimize him. I asked the learned counsel to point out whether there was any evidence to establish victimization and he conceded that there was none. Consequently it cannot be said that the transfer was effected on account of victimization.
6. It was next urged that the appellant was charge-sheeted because of the fact that he made an application to the Chief Minister against the Management and also appeared as a witness in an inquiry held on an application made by a co-worker. Indeed, it is a fact that the appellant had made the application to the Chief Minister and had also appeared as a witness in the alleged inquiry but it was admitted by the appellant that he had refused to drive the vehicle. Thus the charge of refusal was not only proved but admitted. His only excuse was that the vehicle suffered from serious defects and, therefore, it was unsafe to drive it but beyond his bare word there is no evidence to establish it. The Inquiry Officer had found the charge having been established and it being a question of appreciation of evidence cannot be reassessed by the Labour Court as has been held by the Supreme Court. Lastly, it was urged on behalf of the appellant that the inquiry report did not contain reasons for coming to the conclusion. Of course this contention is correct but this is not an illegality which may vitiate the inquiry or bit the order that was passed. The Inquiry Officer clearly stated that he considered the evidence and had come to the conclusion that the charge against the appellant was established. The record also shows that not only the show-cause notice and the inquiry report were sent to the appellant but the proceedings conducted by the Inquiry Officer were also forwarded to him along with the show-cause notice. So the mere fact that the reasons were not given will not affect the validity of the inquiry report as entire material was available to the appellant for making the representation. Even personal hearing was granted to him. It was thereafter that the dismissal order was passed.
7. In result the appeal is dismissed.