MESSRS AMIN FABRICS LTD., KOTRI Versus IMAM BAKHSH

DECISION

This appeal has been filed against the order of the Labour Court ordering re‑instatement of the respondent on an application made under section 25‑A, I. R. O.

2.The respondent was in the permanent employment of the appellant. On account of some misconduct he was charge‑sheeted and an inquiry was held. He was found guilty and after the service of second show‑cause notice he was dismissed from service. Aggrieved by this, he approached the Labour Court after service of the grievance notice under section 25‑A, I. R. O.

3.The application was resisted and it was pleaded that the respondent was guilty of misconduct and he was dismissed from service after having found guilty on the basis of the inquiry which was properly held.

4.Evidence was tendered by both the parties. On the assessment of the evidence, although the learned Presiding Officer conceded that proper inquiry was held and the respondent was dismissed from service after having found guilty as well as a second show‑cause notice along with the inquiry report was delivered to him, but he found fault with the evidence which was produced in support of the allegations against the respondent. Thus in fact, he proceeded to appreciate the evidence which was tendered before the Inquiry Officer.

5.On perusal of the record and proceedings and hearing the argument I am unable to approve of the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer He clearly traversed beyond his jurisdiction to enter into the appreciation the evidence which was the sole function of the Inquiry Officer. It cannot be said, even for a moment, that there was absolutely no evidence. It may that there were certain discrepancies in the defence of the complainer that can hardly be ground for giving jurisdiction to the Labour Court to interfere with the view taken by the inquiry Officer. Of course, it was pointed out that another witness who was examined did not say anything about the incident, but that was also no ground to reject the evidence of the complainant who was examined during the inquiry and had fully supported the accusations which had been levelled against the respondent. The act of the respondent amounted to misconduct justifying dismissal. The inquiry was properly held and no fault can be found. Even the learned representative for the respondent did not assail the inquiry.

6.In result I allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer and dismiss the application made under section 25-A, I. R. O.

Appeal allowed.